PRI Podcast Recap: Even as Cyberwar Rages, We Can't Really Decide What Cyberwar Is

Cyber security, which may also be referred to as cyberwarfare, is now at the forefront of American controversy, so much so that in all the conflicting definitions thereof, it may be hard to find one clear definition. According to Rick Forno, director of the University of Maryland Baltimore County's Graduate Cybersecurity Program, "Generally speaking, cyberwarfare is using computers to attack other computers as a way of exercising your national power or supporting your foreign policy or your military strategy." Forno goes on to say that while cyberwarfare can begin with something paralleling the the U.S.'s "shock and awe" tactic, it may also be very stealthy or insidious, and it is hard for people to know sometimes that their computer and personal data are under a cyber attack until it is too late. Forno also discussed where the U.S. lands in the cyberwarfare battlefield. According to him, the U.S. is somewhat vulnerable in that regard, and the U.S. is more susceptible to being the victim of a cyber attack than to be the one initiating an attack. Additionally, Forno claims that the reason why people with the ability to do so have yet to go all out in cyber attacks is that the rule book has yet to be fully ascertained - some are unsure of what is okay and what is not in the realm of cyberwarfare. Fortunately, Forno also does not foresee what may be called a "cyberwarfare Armageddon."

NPR Podcast Recap: Think Internet Data Mining Goes Too Far? Then You Won't Like This

At the University of Washington, researchers are going beyond general fear regarding the mass surveillance programs of data collection - particularly of the collection of personal data. These researchers are taking on the fear of brain spying that has entered the world in light of new brain scanning software developments that have emerged recently. Companies as well as average individuals with a few extra hundred dollars lying around now have access to brain scanners - technically referred to as brain computer interfaces - that are a window into someone's mind. These brain scanners are essentially headgear that senses electrical patterns in the brain, and translates that message to provide an analysis of someone's emotions or state of mind. It can be used, for example, with video games. Thus, Howard Chizeck of the University of Washington and his team of researchers scrambled to congregated and are now trying to prevent this technology from falling into the hands of greedy businessmen who could use it to manipulate people into buying their products. The researchers conducted an experiment to display how this manipulation would work by using the sensor on someone while they played a video game that featured pop up ads. The gamer's reactions to the ads recorded by the sensor allows insight as to what the gamer likes. This is a tactic that business owners could use to target people with advertisements suited to the gamer's taste. Hopefully, Chizeck can prevent the concept of brain spying from full-on attacking the people of the world.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FIVE: REMEMBER WHO THE REAL ENEMY IS (PART ONE)

"Remember who the real enemy is." This statement made famous by Suzanne Collins, author of the Hunger Games trilogy, not only applies to the dystopian tyranny in the literary world of the Hunger Games, for it may also be applied to the Edward Snowden ordeal. Is the enemy the NSA, as Snowden and his supporters like Glenn Greenwald claim? Or is the NSA in the right, as they use their mass digital data collection to ward off what they would consider the real enemy: the terrorist threat? It has already been established that Edward Snowden is not exactly an enemy of the state as the Constitution’s definition of treason does not apply to what he has done. On the other hand, the Federalist Papers serve to condemn Snowden as an enemy of the people, despite his frequent claims that these rash decisions he made were in the interest of the American public. Is Snowden also an enemy of God? In answering this question, one must first look to the Bible for the definition of an enemy of God. One passage from the Bible that serves to define what an enemy of God looks like is James 4:1-17. In this passage, it is said that “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God… he gives all the more grace; therefore it says, ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’ Submit yourselves therefore to God” (James 4:3-7). Snowden, by this definition, is most definitely an enemy of God. Snowden, through his actions, has not befriended or subscribed to the ways of God. Rather, he is a friend of the world, as he subscribes instead to the sinful ways of the world and of man. He lives to glorify himself, and as it is said, God opposes the proud. It is later said, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:10-12). Edward Snowden is once again a clear opponent of God by means of this definition. Snowden took the fate of the United States as well as the law by which it lives into his own hands and forced his way in as the judge of the law. However, the only one with the authority to do such a thing is God. Snowden, thus, is an enemy of God, for he tried with all his might to be God. Edward Snowden, through his rash actions, took not only his life but the lives of others into his hands and tried to be God. This, therefore, makes Snowden not just an enemy of the people, but also an enemy of God. The Letter of James serves to condemn Edward Snowden and his actions as an enemy of God. There is also a second Bible passage that explains how Snowden’s actions go against what a Christian and true servant of the Lord God is to do, found in the Letter to the Romans. For it is said in Romans 12, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all… Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:14-18). Once again, for a host of reasons, Edward Snowden is not living his life as a servant to the Lord but rather as an enemy of God. Snowden certainly does not live by the guideline expressed in Romans 12, to “not claim to be wiser than you are” (Romans 12:16). He rather is often found singing his own praises, as he brags of his capabilities and power. For example, in an interview, he made note of what he considers a tremendous capacity for hacking as he said, "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.” Self-important boasters like Snowden are not true servants of God, but rather His enemy. Snowden’s tendency for arrogance as well as his many other qualities that violate the guidelines set in Romans 12 make him not one who overcomes evil with good, but rather one who was overcome with the evils and sinful tendencies of human nature, and, thus, an enemy of God. People like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who aggressively oppose the mass digital surveillance of the American public conducted by the NSA claim that the NSA clings to the terrorist threat as an invalid excuse for their actions that Greenwald considers to be unconstitutional violations of rights to privacy in particular. However, in light of a recent report by the Wilson Center, terrorism truly has taken to the digital world. For example, the report opens with a reference to one of many scenarios in which murders and injuries of Americans could have been prevented if suspicious online activity tying one to terrorist groups or ideals had been investigated and pursued. In this case, a man named Arid Uka killed two US servicemen and injured two others, and yet, this could have been prevented. In the report, it is said that “After he was arrested, investigators reviewed the history of Arid Uka’s Internet activity. It showed—most obviously in his Facebook profile—a growing interest in jihadist content, subsequent self-radicalization, and ultimately his viewing of the aforementioned video, which led him to take action in an alleged war in defense of Muslims…Arid Uka is a typical case of the new trend of terrorists being engaged through the newest online platforms, commonly known as the ‘new media’ or ‘social media.’” The report goes on to reference cyberterrorism expert Evan Kohlmann’s explanation of the turn of terrorists to social media, as he says, “Today, 90 percent of terrorist activity on the Internet takes place using social networking tools. . . .These forums act as a virtual firewall to help safeguard the identities of those who participate, and they offer subscribers a chance to make direct contact with terrorist representatives, to ask questions, and even to contribute and help out the cyberjihad.” Made evident in not only these passages but also all throughout the Wilson Center report (to read more of the Wilson Center report, see here: http://www.edline.net/files/_0bJTm_/414a430c9af41b733745a49013852ec4/STIP_140501_new_terrorism_F.pdf) terrorism is now largely present online, especially in social media. Thus, Snowden and his supporters like Greenwald are incorrect in their allegations that the NSA is using the terrorist threat as merely an excuse for their mass surveillance, and in Snowden’s release of the NSA documents, he was also handing this information over to the terrorists that now will most likely proceed to reconfigure their tactics and use of the Internet therein. In other words, Snowden and Greenwald have essentially put the American public in the hands of the terrorists that wish to harm them.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FIVE: THE REAL ENEMY

People like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who aggressively oppose the mass digital surveillance of the American public conducted by the NSA claim that the NSA clings to the terrorist threat as an invalid excuse for their actions that Greenwald considers to be unconstitutional violations of rights to privacy in particular. However, in light of a recent report by the Wilson Center, terrorism truly has taken to the digital world. For example, the report opens with a reference to one of many scenarios in which murders and injuries of Americans could have been prevented if suspicious online activity tying one to terrorist groups or ideals had been investigated and pursued. In this case, a man named Arid Uka killed two US servicemen and injured two others, and yet, this could have been prevented. In the report, it is said that “After he was arrested, investigators reviewed the history of Arid Uka’s Internet activity. It showed—most obviously in his Facebook profile—a growing interest in jihadist content, subsequent self-radicalization, and ultimately his viewing of the aforementioned video, which led him to take action in an alleged war in defense of Muslims…Arid Uka is a typical case of the new trend of terrorists being engaged through the newest online platforms, commonly known as the ‘new media’ or ‘social media.’” The report goes on to reference cyberterrorism expert Evan Kohlmann’s explanation of the turn of terrorists to social media, as he says, “Today, 90 percent of terrorist activity on the Internet takes place using social networking tools. . . .These forums act as a virtual firewall to help safeguard the identities of those who participate, and they offer subscribers a chance to make direct contact with terrorist representatives, to ask questions, and even to contribute and help out the cyberjihad.” Made evident in not only these passages but also all throughout the Wilson Center report (to read more of the Wilson Center report, see here: http://www.edline.net/files/_0bJTm_/414a430c9af41b733745a49013852ec4/STIP_140501_new_terrorism_F.pdf) terrorism is now largely present online, especially in social media. Thus, Snowden and his supporters like Greenwald are incorrect in their allegations that the NSA is using the terrorist threat as merely an excuse for their mass surveillance, and in Snowden’s release of the NSA documents, he was also handing this information over to the terrorists that now will most likely proceed to reconfigure their tactics and use of the Internet therein. In other words, Snowden and Greenwald have essentially put the American public in the hands of the terrorists that wish to harm them.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FIVE: THE ENEMY OF GOD (PART TWO)

The Letter of James serves to condemn Edward Snowden and his actions as an enemy of God. There is also a second Bible passage that explains how Snowden’s actions go against what a Christian and true servant of the Lord God is to do, found in the Letter to the Romans. For it is said in Romans 12, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all… Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:14-18). Once again, for a host of reasons, Edward Snowden is not living his life as a servant to the Lord but rather as an enemy of God. Snowden certainly does not live by the guideline expressed in Romans 12, to “not claim to be wiser than you are” (Romans 12:16). He rather is often found singing his own praises, as he brags of his capabilities and power. For example, in an interview, he made note of what he considers a tremendous capacity for hacking as he said, "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.” Self-important boasters like Snowden are not true servants of God, but rather His enemy. Snowden’s tendency for arrogance as well as his many other qualities that violate the guidelines set in Romans 12 make him not one who overcomes evil with good, but rather one who was overcome with the evils and sinful tendencies of human nature, and, thus, an enemy of God.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FIVE: THE ENEMY OF GOD (PART ONE)

It has already been established that Edward Snowden is not exactly an enemy of the state as the Constitution’s definition of treason does not apply to what he has done. On the other hand, the Federalist Papers serve to condemn Snowden as an enemy of the people, despite his frequent claims that these rash decisions he made were in the interest of the American public. Is Snowden also an enemy of God? In answering this question, one must first look to the Bible for the definition of an enemy of God. One passage from the Bible that serves to define what an enemy of God looks like is James 4:1-17. In this passage, it is said that “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God… he gives all the more grace; therefore it says, ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’ Submit yourselves therefore to God” (James 4:3-7). Snowden, by this definition, is most definitely an enemy of God. Snowden, through his actions, has not befriended or subscribed to the ways of God. Rather, he is a friend of the world, as he subscribes instead to the sinful ways of the world and of man. He lives to glorify himself, and as it is said, God opposes the proud. It is later said, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:10-12). Edward Snowden is once again a clear opponent of God by means of this definition. Snowden took the fate of the United States as well as the law by which it lives into his own hands and forced his way in as the judge of the law. However, the only one with the authority to do such a thing is God. Snowden, thus, is an enemy of God, for he tried with all his might to be God. Edward Snowden, through his rash actions, took not only his life but the lives of others into his hands and tried to be God. This, therefore, makes Snowden not just an enemy of the people, but also an enemy of God.

Fire and Ice: The World up in Flames

As Nobel Prize winner George Bernard Shaw once said in his novel Man and Superman, “There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it.” As Shaw illustrates, desire is an injurious characteristic of man and an unfortunate aspect of life – it brings about tragedy no matter what, whether desires are unfulfilled or fulfilled. Robert Frost similarly commented on the adverse effects of desire, but on a much larger scale than merely life: Frost says in his poem Fire and Ice that the entire world shall end in “fire” – fire being a metaphorical representation of desire, while he also refers to “ice” or hatred as another possible cause of the end of the world. In a way, both Shaw and Frost are right. The end of the world will more likely be brought about by means of fire or desire than by ice or hatred, for desire has been the driving force behind all destruction to date. The destructive qualities of fire or desire may be seen in all the ways in which it wreaks havoc on the world today. Firstly, one of the many ways in which desire manifests its powers of destruction is through adultery – a sin that is brought about by desire and desire only. The destructive quality of this act always initiated by desire is noted in what many Christians consider one of the sets of guidelines for salvation: the Ten Commandments. God calls for man to avoid the desires fulfilled in adultery as he commands, “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14). In giving in to the desires of adultery, man is undermining God’s commands that are meant to guide man away from death and destruction and to heaven. Further evidence of the devastation of adultery is found when Jesus condemns not only those who commit adultery but also those who look lustfully at another woman. Jesus says, “‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart’” (Mt 5:27-28). Additionally, adultery also serves to destroy the basic social institution of man and tear at the fabric of mankind – the family. For it is said, “Those who trouble their household inherit the wind, and fools become slaves to the wise of heart” (Prv 29:11). Thus, when man allows the desire to partake in adultery overtake him, man is considered a fool for bringing about destruction to the family, the basic foundation of life. The damage that the desire that leads to adultery brings about to not only the adulterers’ hopes of salvation as well as their families parallels the destruction that desire may eventually bring to the world in its entirety. Moreover, a second way in which desire exhibits its destructive qualities is through the desire of man to fall to idolatry that exists in the world today – particularly in corporate America. First, the Ten Commandments, which act as a handbook for avoiding the destruction of the Earth and instead gaining favor with the Lord, calls out idolaters for desiring to follow another god as opposed to the one true God. God commands, “I am the LORD your God…You shall not have other gods beside me. You shall not make for yourself an idol…you shall not bow down before them or serve them” (Ex 20:2-5). Thus, when man desires to stray from God and take the easier path of worshipping a tangible and inanimate idol, that man is also straying from salvation and eternal life and heading rather in the direction of man’s destruction. The book of Hebrews delves deeper into the issue of man’s desire to worship other gods – specifically, the worship of money over God. It is said, “Let your life be free from love of money but be content with what you have, for he has said, ‘I will never forsake you or abandon you’” (Heb 13:5). Man is to not allow money to overpower him, for God is the true source of love and salvation. The consequences of the desire to idolize money rather than serve God is found in the First Letter to Timothy, when it is said that “Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction” (1 Tm 6:9). This applies especially to modern-day corporate America in that many men part of the business world of the United States become enamored with money and constantly desire more and more. However, as stated in the First Letter to Timothy, this overpowering desire to idolize money will lead to the destruction of man. Furthermore, a third way in which desire displays its ill effects on the fate of mankind is through the desire of power, particularly in a governmental, tyrannical setting. First, the Letter to the Romans contains the limits of the power of man. For it is said, “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God” (Rom 13:1). Therefore, man should not allow the desire for all-encompassing power to overcome him as only God is meant to have that kind of authority. The foolishness of those who desire power and exercise tyrannical rule over others is further expressed in Proverbs 28, when it is said that “The less prudent the rulers, the more oppressive their deeds. Those who hate ill-gotten gain prolong their days” (Prv 28:16). The ultimate punishment God administers to cruel leaders who desire power over anything appears in the story of the just shepherd. God says, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture – oracle of the LORD. Therefore, thus says the LORD…against the shepherds who shepherd my people…You have not cared for them, but I will take care to punish your evil deeds” (Jer 23:1-2). God indicates that there shall be destruction for all shepherds who mislead his sheep – or, in other words, all leaders who oppress his people. As Robert Frost said in his poem Fire and Ice, many people may claim that ice, the metaphorical representation of hate, is predominantly responsible for destruction in the past and destruction yet to come at the end of the world while fire or desire falls second thereto. They may justify this claim saying that hate is ever present in the worst moments in history – perhaps using the Holocaust as an example where hatred was the domineering force that led to the horrors and crimes against humanity that occurred within that expanse of time. However, though hatred did play its part in the horrors in all the history of the world, desire was what fueled that hatred as well as, in many instances, what lead to that hatred. Would hatred even exist without desire? It seems as though the answer is no. For example, Hitler’s desire for power and for his ideal Aryan race to rule the world was what led to his cruel and evil acts of pure hatred against the Jewish people. If not for this desire for power, he may have never advanced to hatred and the massacre of the Jews. As illustrated by showcases of destruction in the not only in the past and but also in the present, George Bernard Shaw and Robert Frost were correct in pinning the tragedies of life as well as the eventual destruction of all mankind on fire or desire. Desire – the driving force behind all instances of destruction in the world – is much more likely to bring about the destruction of the world than hatred. In more metaphorical terms, fire – not ice – will be the one to engulf the world in its flames and bring about its destruction.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FOUR: THE HACKING SIDE OF THINGS

What role does hacking play in the national security and Snowden ordeal? What does hacking look like from an international and domestic standpoint? What justifies - or does not justify - hacking? First, take a look at how the United States is attempting to condemn other hackers, while the only hackers currently in sight are in the United States. The espionage spotlight has recently shifted from Edward Snowden to the Chinese hackers recently charged for "cyber espionage" as the FBI documentation states – and that is also how the journalists frame it. Is the acts of espionage committed by these Chinese men, however, what this is really about? In the FBI documentation of the Chinese hackers' crimes, it alleges that Wang Dong, Sun Kailiang, Wen Xinyu, Huang Zhenyu, and Gu Chunhui – the five members of the Chinese military accused of these crimes – not only engaged in computer hacking, but also in a sort of economic espionage by stealing U.S. trade secrets in order to benefit Chinese corporations. Also within these documents is a chart indicating the charges against the five Chinese hackers and the sections of the U.S. Code that correspond to the charges. The prominent statute that acted as grounds for several of the charges was found in section 1030 of the U.S. Code, called "Fraud and related activity in connection with computers". However, also within this section of the U.S. Code is a series of accusations that not only apply to the Chinese hackers but also the recent actions of the United States. For example, “Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) [1] of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.)… [or] information from any protected computer…” Is that not similar to, if not exactly what the NSA does to American citizens? Furthermore, it seems as though that this is all an attempt to veer the world’s focuses from the United States and their unconstitutional actions of what may essentially be referred to as computer hacking to another country all the way across the globe, despite the fact that the counts against the five Chinese “computer hackers” are not likely to ever be debated in a courtroom and are not even legitimate. One thing that reduces the credibility of these charges is the many suspicious coincidences – that may not actually be coincidences at all – that may be found within the FBI documentation. One thing to note is that the documentation was released by the Pittsburgh division of the FBI. Also, the victims of the Chinese hackers such as Westinghouse were companies that deal with steel as well as energy – particularly, in Westinghouse’s cases, nuclear energy. Though these may seem like small, irrelevant details, they are most definitely not, due to the one thing they have in common: Representative Tim Murphy. What exactly does this member of the House of Representatives have to do with the indictment of these Chinese men? Representative Tim Murphy seems to be in pretty deep with both Westinghouse and several American steel corporations, as he is, for one, the Congressional Steel Caucus Chairman. In fact, he commented on the Chinese hackers’ indictment recently, saying, “This indictment proves we’re losing manufacturing jobs not because the US stopped making great products, but because the Chinese government is stealing ideas, inventions, and intellectual property straight out of Western Pennsylvania,” said Rep. Murphy. “The Chinese government hacked into our computers, stolen business blueprints, erected trade barriers, and manipulated currency markets all to give state-owned enterprises an unfair and illegal advantage against American competitors.” He expresses clear allegiance with the American steel companies while denouncing the Chinese hackers. Also, Representative Murphy has strong ties to Westinghouse, as he recently backed the global company’s loans. In addition, Representative Murphy represents the 18th district of Pennsylvania in the House, the very state from which the FBI indicted the five Chinese men. There is too great a number of connections between Representative Murphy and this indictment to be considered mere coincidences. In conclusion, something just does not add up in regard to these charges against the five Chinese men. There is much more to this story than there seems to be, and it may very well be a cover up to shine the spotlight of unauthorized surveillance and hacking on anyone aside from the NSA. What do the u.S.'s most prized publications have to say about hacking, and the justification thereof? John Stuart Mill’s publication On Liberty which is held by many Americans in the highest of regards contains an entire chapter that may be applied to the NSA’s methods of surveillance that have recently emerged at the forefront of American controversy – chapter four, entitled “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual”. Within this chapter one may find text that supports the claims of the opponents of the NSA, such as Glenn Greenwald. One such excerpt that Greenwald and those with similar views to him could use to support their arguments is when Mill says, “What I contend for is, that the inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the unfavorable judgment of others, are the only ones to which a person should ever be subjected for that portion of his conduct and character which concerns his own good, but which does not affect the interests of others in their relations with him.” Essentially, what Mill means in that passage from On Liberty is that only the person in question engaging in activities that are harmful to society should be held accountable, and that anyone connected to the person in question should not be dragged into the person in question’s accountability. This can be applied to the situation with NSA surveillance in that this statement would serve to condemn the NSA’s mass surveillance and method of monitoring suspicious persons in that the NSA – after detecting suspicious activity coming from a single person – not only begins to investigate the person of interest but also proceeds to connect the dots between the person of interest and all people in relation therewith. This, according to the aforementioned claim of Mill, is where the NSA is crossing the line, for it is only justifiable to monitor the actions of the person of interest and rather unjust to drag others into it. This excerpt from On Liberty serves to give one possible answer to the ever important question: What are, or what should be, the limits of the NSA? John Stuart Mill’s publication On Liberty not only contains what may be described as Greenwald’s sentence, but also former head of the NSA General Michael Hayden’s sentence. Mill follows Greenwald’s sentence directly with Hayden’s, as he says, “Acts injurious to others require a totally different treatment.” Mill elaborates upon that statement by defining the injurious acts in saying, “Encroachment on their rights; infliction on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity in dealing with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against injury — these are fit objects of moral reprobation, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment. And not only these acts, but the dispositions which lead to them, are properly immoral, and fit subjects of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence.” What Mill means this time is that though, as Greenwald believes, only the persons of interest require special attention and that no one in relation to them should be similarly monitored, when the actions of the person of interest include harming other people, that opens the door to more desperate measures. He also provides a definition of what exactly these “acts injurious to others” entails. Thus, it seems as though Mill’s On Liberty serves neither to favor people like General Hayden who support the NSA or people like Glenn Greenwald who rather oppose the NSA. This is the case because when Mill states support for Greenwald in condemning the methods of connecting the dots that the NSA carry out when investigating persons of interest, he immediately follows it with what the exception to this is, and the exception is when people are engaging in acts that are detrimental to society. Thus, Mill does not support either extreme – no method of surveillance for the sake of national security nor the indiscriminant metadata method of surveillance – but rather a happy medium. Mill calls for neither an indiscriminant nor nonexistent NSA, but instead for an ideal NSA that does not collect all but only makes exceptions and connects dots between people when a real threat to the American public is present. In conclusion, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty only goes to show that neither extreme is justifiable, and that a compromise must be reached in order to uphold both the rights of citizens and national security.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FOUR: ON LIBERTY…AND RIGHTFUL HACKING

John Stuart Mill’s publication On Liberty not only contains what may be described as Greenwald’s sentence, but also former head of the NSA General Michael Hayden’s sentence. Mill follows Greenwald’s sentence directly with Hayden’s, as he says, “Acts injurious to others require a totally different treatment.” Mill elaborates upon that statement by defining the injurious acts in saying, “Encroachment on their rights; infliction on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity in dealing with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against injury — these are fit objects of moral reprobation, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment. And not only these acts, but the dispositions which lead to them, are properly immoral, and fit subjects of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence.” What Mill means this time is that though, as Greenwald believes, only the persons of interest require special attention and that no one in relation to them should be similarly monitored, when the actions of the person of interest include harming other people, that opens the door to more desperate measures. He also provides a definition of what exactly these “acts injurious to others” entails. Thus, it seems as though Mill’s On Liberty serves neither to favor people like General Hayden who support the NSA or people like Glenn Greenwald who rather oppose the NSA. This is the case because when Mill states support for Greenwald in condemning the methods of connecting the dots that the NSA carry out when investigating persons of interest, he immediately follows it with what the exception to this is, and the exception is when people are engaging in acts that are detrimental to society. Thus, Mill does not support either extreme – no method of surveillance for the sake of national security nor the indiscriminant metadata method of surveillance – but rather a happy medium. Mill calls for neither an indiscriminant nor nonexistent NSA, but instead for an ideal NSA that does not collect all but only makes exceptions and connects dots between people when a real threat to the American public is present. In conclusion, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty only goes to show that neither extreme is justifiable, and that a compromise must be reached in order to uphold both the rights of citizens and national security.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FOUR: ON LIBERTY…AND UNJUST HACKING

John Stuart Mill’s publication On Liberty which is held by many Americans in the highest of regards contains an entire chapter that may be applied to the NSA’s methods of surveillance that have recently emerged at the forefront of American controversy – chapter four, entitled “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual”. Within this chapter one may find text that supports the claims of the opponents of the NSA, such as Glenn Greenwald. One such excerpt that Greenwald and those with similar views to him could use to support their arguments is when Mill says, “What I contend for is, that the inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the unfavorable judgment of others, are the only ones to which a person should ever be subjected for that portion of his conduct and character which concerns his own good, but which does not affect the interests of others in their relations with him.” Essentially, what Mill means in that passage from On Liberty is that only the person in question engaging in activities that are harmful to society should be held accountable, and that anyone connected to the person in question should not be dragged into the person in question’s accountability. This can be applied to the situation with NSA surveillance in that this statement would serve to condemn the NSA’s mass surveillance and method of monitoring suspicious persons in that the NSA – after detecting suspicious activity coming from a single person – not only begins to investigate the person of interest but also proceeds to connect the dots between the person of interest and all people in relation therewith. This, according to the aforementioned claim of Mill, is where the NSA is crossing the line, for it is only justifiable to monitor the actions of the person of interest and rather unjust to drag others into it. This excerpt from On Liberty serves to give one possible answer to the ever important question: What are, or what should be, the limits of the NSA?

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FOUR: AMERICAN HACKING

Hacking also has a fruitful existence is the United States alone as it has a multifaceted hacking scene, with not only domestic hacking but also international hacking, predominantly facilitated by none other than the NSA. There has been recent activity in the realm of domestic hacking in America, according to recent reports from the Department of Homeland Security. In light of a recent report given by DHS of yet another attack by, according to Reuters, “A sophisticated hacking group” that “recently attacked a U.S. public utility and compromised its control system network”, DHS came to the conclusion devices that interface with the Internet have been a source of concern for them lately. In fact, according to Reuters, “Last year ICS-CERT [DHS’s Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team] responded to 256 cyber incident reports, more than half of them in the energy sector…that is nearly double the agency's 2012 case load…” Evidently, hacking does not only happen country to country – it happens domestically in America quite frequently. The much deeper story with the much deeper corresponding questions is located rather within the concept of international hacking. For example, in David E. Sanger of The New York Times’ article “Fine Line Seen in U.S. Spying on Companies”, the global controversy raised by the NSA’s international hacking and spying. Though U.S. officials argue in favor of the NSA’s international hacking and spying, claiming that “it routinely spies to advance American economic advantage, which is part of its broad definition of how it protects American national security.” However, this also helps fuel the China’s argument that the U.S. had no right to indict the five Chinese hackers, for the U.S. is acting quite hypocritical in that sense. “Now, every one of the examples of N.S.A. spying on corporations around the world is becoming Exhibit A in China’s argument that by indicting five members of the People’s Liberation Army, the Obama administration is giving new meaning to capitalistic hypocrisy. In the Chinese view, the United States has designed its own system of rules about what constitutes ‘legal’ spying and what is illegal.” A recent RAND report entitled “Markets for Cybercrime Tools and Stolen Data”, the question of the legitimacy of businesses is a consistent topic. One method of determining legitimacy is suggested when they say, “As with most things, intent is what can make something criminal or legitimate, and there are cases where goods or services can be used for altruistic or malicious purposes…” This, however, may also be applied to hacking. Thus, the U.S. government must ask itself these questions and analyze their national relations with this concept from the RAND report in mind. The integrity of the land of the free and the home of the brave is at stake.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART FOUR: THE SPOTLIGHT SHIFTS

The espionage spotlight has recently shifted from Edward Snowden to the Chinese hackers recently charged for "cyber espionage" as the FBI documentation states – and that is also how the journalists frame it. Is the acts of espionage committed by these Chinese men, however, what this is really about? In the FBI documentation of the Chinese hackers' crimes, it alleges that Wang Dong, Sun Kailiang, Wen Xinyu, Huang Zhenyu, and Gu Chunhui – the five members of the Chinese military accused of these crimes – not only engaged in computer hacking, but also in a sort of economic espionage by stealing U.S. trade secrets in order to benefit Chinese corporations. Also within these documents is a chart indicating the charges against the five Chinese hackers and the sections of the U.S. Code that correspond to the charges. The prominent statute that acted as grounds for several of the charges was found in section 1030 of the U.S. Code, called "Fraud and related activity in connection with computers". However, also within this section of the U.S. Code is a series of accusations that not only apply to the Chinese hackers but also the recent actions of the United States. For example, “Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) [1] of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.)… [or] information from any protected computer…” Is that not similar to, if not exactly what the NSA does to American citizens? Furthermore, it seems as though that this is all an attempt to veer the world’s focuses from the United States and their unconstitutional actions of what may essentially be referred to as computer hacking to another country all the way across the globe, despite the fact that the counts against the five Chinese “computer hackers” are not likely to ever be debated in a courtroom and are not even legitimate. One thing that reduces the credibility of these charges is the many suspicious coincidences – that may not actually be coincidences at all – that may be found within the FBI documentation. One thing to note is that the documentation was released by the Pittsburgh division of the FBI. Also, the victims of the Chinese hackers such as Westinghouse were companies that deal with steel as well as energy – particularly, in Westinghouse’s cases, nuclear energy. Though these may seem like small, irrelevant details, they are most definitely not, due to the one thing they have in common: Representative Tim Murphy. What exactly does this member of the House of Representatives have to do with the indictment of these Chinese men? Representative Tim Murphy seems to be in pretty deep with both Westinghouse and several American steel corporations, as he is, for one, the Congressional Steel Caucus Chairman. In fact, he commented on the Chinese hackers’ indictment recently, saying, “This indictment proves we’re losing manufacturing jobs not because the US stopped making great products, but because the Chinese government is stealing ideas, inventions, and intellectual property straight out of Western Pennsylvania,” said Rep. Murphy. “The Chinese government hacked into our computers, stolen business blueprints, erected trade barriers, and manipulated currency markets all to give state-owned enterprises an unfair and illegal advantage against American competitors.” He expresses clear allegiance with the American steel companies while denouncing the Chinese hackers. Also, Representative Murphy has strong ties to Westinghouse, as he recently backed the global company’s loans. In addition, Representative Murphy represents the 18th district of Pennsylvania in the House, the very state from which the FBI indicted the five Chinese men. There is too great a number of connections between Representative Murphy and this indictment to be considered mere coincidences. In conclusion, something just does not add up in regard to these charges against the five Chinese men. There is much more to this story than there seems to be, and it may very well be a cover up to shine the spotlight of unauthorized surveillance and hacking on anyone aside from the NSA.

Cato Institute Podcast Recap: No Place to Hide

General Keith Alexander once said, in argument that supports the current state of the NSA, that no Internet based conversation could ever go uncollected. Though the United States government tried to shoo Americans from this comment claiming that it was an offhand remark perhaps even stated in jest, according to Glenn Greenwald,this is in reality what the NSA sees as its mission. Though they claim that it is limited to persons of interests, Greenwald is convinced that it is aggressive and indiscriminant - and this is one of the focuses of Greenwald's new book, No Place to Hide. Furthermore, on the matter of the government's justification of what information and data is regarded relevant enough for collection, Greenwald says that those in power will constantly cross the line of privacy more and more until encroachment becomes the norm as it has no punishment or limiting factor. Greenwald has little good to say about the NSA while he instead holds the NSA accountable for crossing many lines in regards to citizens' rights to privacy. (For more of Greenwald's interview with the Cato Institute, use this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApY7MVeoldo)

Cato Institute Podcast Recap: The Burglary (Part 1)

In his time, J. Edgar Hoover was very popular amongst the American people - very well-liked, and, according to a poll, even more so than some presidents. In 1924, he was appointed as the Director of the FBI at the age of 29, and he served in that position for half a century. At the time when Hoover held his position as Director of the FBI, there were, unlike today, there was absolutely no supervision of the institution's activity. Thus, there were very few government officials who suspected anything of the secret FBI Hoover was leading. This freedom brought about by the lack of oversight of Hoover's actions was what allowed him to abuse his power in his governing of COINTELPRO. However, the night of March 8th, 1971, everything changed. A group referred to as the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into the an FBI office as a result of suspicion of Hoover's suppression of dissent and in pursuit of evidence against Hoover. Citizens took a stand against the suppression of one of the most powerful figures of governmental authority in the United States at the time, and embarked upon what may be referred to as "old school hacking".

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART THREE: THE SNOWDEN FAULT LINE

Edward Snowden, with his uncovering of several of the NSA's secret documents, left a fault line is his wake - with some people on one side, some on the other, and some right in the middle. See how Snowden's actions have affected citizens, journalists, even entire countries in causing sharp divisions among people once united. In regard to two extremes – forgetting everything and remembering everything – it is safe to say that the NSA is on the side of the spectrum that recalls all. In a sense, the NSA never forgets: details of and connections between the past and present are constantly scrutinized and analyzed by NSA officials as a means for detecting suspicious activities that threaten the safety of U.S. citizens. So what, then, falls on the opposite side of this spectrum? As of a recent court hearing, it seems as though Google would be on the opposite end in that it is an entity that now has the capability to forget all – in Europe, at least. In a press release by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it discusses the court’s decision that allows people to request that search engine’s disallow certain links to show up when their name is searched. For example, it says in the document, “An internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties…Thus, if, following a search made on the basis of a person’s name, the list of results displays a link to a web page which contains information on the person in question, that data subject may approach the operator directly and, where the operator does not grant his request, bring the matter before the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the removal of that link from the list of results.” This essentially grants people with the right to be forgotten, or to have whatever information they should like removed at will. Though this may have a few positive attributes, it also has several negative. For example, it could eliminate the important aspect of consequence from a world so in need of its governing powers. Consequences are what ultimately prevent people from choosing to do the wrong thing – and when people do choose the wrong thing, consequences prevent people from making those choices again. However, in a world where all the wrongdoers and criminals can have the negative aftermath of their actions in their hands and are able to erase information regarding their wrongdoings from the Internet that allows them to break free of the consequences of their actions. To put this into the context of everyday life, imagine what would happen if one of these wrongdoers was running for office. The average American does not have the time to sift through the archives when researching each candidate for office, and most people think a quick Google check of the person will suffice. What if one campaigner had had a criminal record, but asked for it to be removed from Google search results? Disaster and further governmental turmoil could result. These two extremes – the all-remembering NSA and the all-forgetting Google – bring up several important questions. How do both of these methods affect the exercising of the right of free speech? According to the Stanford Law Review, many have belittled the effects of the recent allowance of the right to be forgotten’s effect on free speech while in reality, it has an enormous and negative effect on free speech. For example, in the review, they say, ““…the European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights, and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, announced the European Commission’s proposal to create a sweeping new privacy right—the ‘right to be forgotten’… Although Reding depicted the new right as a modest expansion of existing data privacy rights, in fact it represents the biggest threat to free speech on the Internet in the coming decade.” They go on to further express the harmful effects of this new concept on free speech, saying, “Unless the right is defined more precisely when it is promulgated over the next year or so, it could precipitate a dramatic clash between European and American conceptions of the proper balance between privacy and free speech, leading to a far less open Internet.” Also, does either of these methods work, or is there a happy medium that must be reached for the sake of the United States and national security? Who should make that decision? That is something that only time shall serve to tell. The Court of Justice of the European Union has made their opinion clear on the question of freedom of speech as well as the right to be forgotten – two things with a significant impact on national security. The opinion of the American journalism community regarding national security was also made evident recently in their awarding of the Pulitzer Prize to The Washington Post and The Guardian for their coverage of Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. What has the American public got to say on the topic of national security? According to a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center, “…the [American] public remains divided over whether those classified leaks [by Edward Snowden] served the public interest.” This sharp division is especially seen in the age 18-29 demographic in regard to whether Snowden should be tried by the U.S. government, as 42% within that age group said that Snowden should be tried while 42% said that he should not. Another pattern that emerged in the data from both a poll regarding whether or not Snowden’s leaks had served the public interest as well as a poll on whether or not the U.S. government should pursue a criminal case against Snowden that also serves to demonstrate the divide amongst the Americans on the Snowden controversy is the factor of age. On average, as the age demographics polled got increasingly older, the more likely they were to have a negative attitude towards Snowden – saying that his actions harmed the public interest and hoping that the government pursues a criminal case against Snowden. Thus, the younger age demographics were more torn in regards to their opinions of Snowden. This clear difference in opinion between the younger and older generations on Edward Snowden’s actions – with the older generations firmer in their negative opinions of Snowden and the younger generations either more conflicted or positive in their opinions of Snowden – can lead to even more issues in the United States. As Abraham Lincoln once famously said in a time long ago of controversy in the United States, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” This may very well reflect the current day and age in which the American public is, once again, divided against itself regarding another controversy – this time, however, the controversy is on national security and the Edward Snowden ordeal. There is division between countries on the matter of free speech and its ties to national security. There is division between American citizens regarding Edward Snowden and his ties to national security. This division on matters of national security also extend to the fourth estate, or the world of journalism. This division has come to light recently with the release of Glenn Greenwald’s book No Place to Hide in which he details the Snowden ordeal as well as condemns the unjust methods of the NSA, as journalists take opposing sides – some acclaiming Greenwald and his book, others tearing not only the book but Greenwald apart, still others in the middle. One journalist who acclaimed Greenwald’s book while she also holds many views similar to those of Greenwald is Emily Bazelon of the Slate Book Review. In her article “Why Are You So Fearful, O Ye of Little Faith?”, she gave a summary of the highlights of the book followed by her concurrence with Greenwald’s view as well as concluding remarks in praise and in defense of Greenwald against his many critics. This is evident when Bazelon says, “Surely skeptics will argue that Greenwald is too close to his source to be trusted, but I don’t think so. I think he is vouching for Snowden because he vetted him and he knows him. Last summer the journalist and the whistleblower took a huge and risky plunge together, along with Poitras and Gellman. Now Greenwald is coming up for air and, with this incisive, slashing book, reaping the benefits of being adventuresome, dogged—and, as far as the evidence shows, right.” On the other hand, a journalist who certainly does not side with either Greenwald nor Bazelon based on his review of No Place to Hide is David Cole of the Washington Post. In his article “‘No Place to Hide’ by Glenn Greenwald, on the NSA’s sweeping efforts to ‘Know it All’”, Cole summarizes Greenwald’s negative claims about the NSA’s activities and proceeds to critique what he considered to be the many flaws of Greenwald’s book. For instance, Cole claims many of Greenwald’s analyses of the NSA to be either misleading or overly exaggerated. Cole expresses his criticism of Greenwald’s mistake of making too many hyperbolic statements, saying, “Such overstatement weakens Greenwald’s credibility, which is unfortunate, because much of what he has to say is extremely valuable.” He elaborates upon this major error of Greenwald’s book as he says, “Part of the problem is that Greenwald sees the world in black and white. As he puts it, ‘There are, broadly speaking, two choices: obedience to institutional authority or radical dissent from it.’ For him there is apparently nothing in between. Anyone who does not share his radical dissent is, therefore, a tool for the political elite.” Though Cole does appreciate Greenwald’s creation of a book on such an important topic, he disapproves of his tendency to overstate. An additional journalist that seems to be in the middle – as he appreciates some aspects of the book and criticizes other parts – is Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times. In his article entitled “Snowden’s Story, Behind the Scenes”, after summarizing Greenwald’s account of the Snowden ordeal, he makes claims both praising Greenwald’s book and disapproving of it. For example, he commends Greenwald for his strong arguments in favor of the right of privacy as he says, “When Mr. Greenwald turns his fervor to the issue of surveillance and its implications for ordinary citizens’ civil liberties, he is far more credible. Sometimes eloquent…And he delivers a fierce argument in defense of the right of privacy.” However, Kakutani also manages to slip in some objection to Greenwald’s downfall in his extreme overgeneralizations and exaggerations (the same critique David Cole made) when he claims, “many of Mr. Greenwald’s gross generalizations about the establishment media do a terrible disservice to the many tenacious investigative reporters who have broken important stories on some of the very subjects like the war on terror and executive power that Mr. Greenwald feels so strongly about.” Made evident by merely three of a multitude of reviews of No Place to Hide, there is a large variance of opinions on Edward Snowden and national security amongst journalists, causing further division within the United States.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART THREE: ANOTHER DIVISION

There is division between countries on the matter of free speech and its ties to national security. There is division between American citizens regarding Edward Snowden and his ties to national security. This division on matters of national security also extend to the fourth estate, or the world of journalism. This division has come to light recently with the release of Glenn Greenwald’s book No Place to Hide in which he details the Snowden ordeal as well as condemns the unjust methods of the NSA, as journalists take opposing sides – some acclaiming Greenwald and his book, others tearing not only the book but Greenwald apart, still others in the middle. One journalist who acclaimed Greenwald’s book while she also holds many views similar to those of Greenwald is Emily Bazelon of the Slate Book Review. In her article “Why Are You So Fearful, O Ye of Little Faith?”, she gave a summary of the highlights of the book followed by her concurrence with Greenwald’s view as well as concluding remarks in praise and in defense of Greenwald against his many critics. This is evident when Bazelon says, “Surely skeptics will argue that Greenwald is too close to his source to be trusted, but I don’t think so. I think he is vouching for Snowden because he vetted him and he knows him. Last summer the journalist and the whistleblower took a huge and risky plunge together, along with Poitras and Gellman. Now Greenwald is coming up for air and, with this incisive, slashing book, reaping the benefits of being adventuresome, dogged—and, as far as the evidence shows, right.” On the other hand, a journalist who certainly does not side with either Greenwald nor Bazelon based on his review of No Place to Hide is David Cole of the Washington Post. In his article “‘No Place to Hide’ by Glenn Greenwald, on the NSA’s sweeping efforts to ‘Know it All’”, Cole summarizes Greenwald’s negative claims about the NSA’s activities and proceeds to critique what he considered to be the many flaws of Greenwald’s book. For instance, Cole claims many of Greenwald’s analyses of the NSA to be either misleading or overly exaggerated. Cole expresses his criticism of Greenwald’s mistake of making too many hyperbolic statements, saying, “Such overstatement weakens Greenwald’s credibility, which is unfortunate, because much of what he has to say is extremely valuable.” He elaborates upon this major error of Greenwald’s book as he says, “Part of the problem is that Greenwald sees the world in black and white. As he puts it, ‘There are, broadly speaking, two choices: obedience to institutional authority or radical dissent from it.’ For him there is apparently nothing in between. Anyone who does not share his radical dissent is, therefore, a tool for the political elite.” Though Cole does appreciate Greenwald’s creation of a book on such an important topic, he disapproves of his tendency to overstate. An additional journalist that seems to be in the middle – as he appreciates some aspects of the book and criticizes other parts – is Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times. In his article entitled “Snowden’s Story, Behind the Scenes”, after summarizing Greenwald’s account of the Snowden ordeal, he makes claims both praising Greenwald’s book and disapproving of it. For example, he commends Greenwald for his strong arguments in favor of the right of privacy as he says, “When Mr. Greenwald turns his fervor to the issue of surveillance and its implications for ordinary citizens’ civil liberties, he is far more credible. Sometimes eloquent…And he delivers a fierce argument in defense of the right of privacy.” However, Kakutani also manages to slip in some objection to Greenwald’s downfall in his extreme overgeneralizations and exaggerations (the same critique David Cole made) when he claims, “many of Mr. Greenwald’s gross generalizations about the establishment media do a terrible disservice to the many tenacious investigative reporters who have broken important stories on some of the very subjects like the war on terror and executive power that Mr. Greenwald feels so strongly about.” Made evident by merely three of a multitude of reviews of No Place to Hide, there is a large variance of opinions on Edward Snowden and national security amongst journalists, causing further division within the United States.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART THREE: A HOUSE DIVIDED

The Court of Justice of the European Union has made their opinion clear on the question of freedom of speech as well as the right to be forgotten – two things with a significant impact on national security. The opinion of the American journalism community regarding national security was also made evident recently in their awarding of the Pulitzer Prize to The Washington Post and The Guardian for their coverage of Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. What has the American public got to say on the topic of national security? According to a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center, “…the [American] public remains divided over whether those classified leaks [by Edward Snowden] served the public interest.” This sharp division is especially seen in the age 18-29 demographic in regard to whether Snowden should be tried by the U.S. government, as 42% within that age group said that Snowden should be tried while 42% said that he should not. Another pattern that emerged in the data from both a poll regarding whether or not Snowden’s leaks had served the public interest as well as a poll on whether or not the U.S. government should pursue a criminal case against Snowden that also serves to demonstrate the divide amongst the Americans on the Snowden controversy is the factor of age. On average, as the age demographics polled got increasingly older, the more likely they were to have a negative attitude towards Snowden – saying that his actions harmed the public interest and hoping that the government pursues a criminal case against Snowden. Thus, the younger age demographics were more torn in regards to their opinions of Snowden. This clear difference in opinion between the younger and older generations on Edward Snowden’s actions – with the older generations firmer in their negative opinions of Snowden and the younger generations either more conflicted or positive in their opinions of Snowden – can lead to even more issues in the United States. As Abraham Lincoln once famously said in a time long ago of controversy in the United States, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” This may very well reflect the current day and age in which the American public is, once again, divided against itself regarding another controversy – this time, however, the controversy is on national security and the Edward Snowden ordeal. (For more on Pew Research’s analysis of the American public’s opinion regarding Edward Snowden’s leaks, see here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/15/nsa-coverage-wins-pulitzer-but-americans-remain-divided-on-snowden-leaks/)

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART THREE: WHAT’S GOOGLE GOT TO DO WITH IT?

In regard to two extremes – forgetting everything and remembering everything – it is safe to say that the NSA is on the side of the spectrum that recalls all. In a sense, the NSA never forgets: details of and connections between the past and present are constantly scrutinized and analyzed by NSA officials as a means for detecting suspicious activities that threaten the safety of U.S. citizens. So what, then, falls on the opposite side of this spectrum? As of a recent court hearing, it seems as though Google would be on the opposite end in that it is an entity that now has the capability to forget all – in Europe, at least. In a press release by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it discusses the court’s decision that allows people to request that search engine’s disallow certain links to show up when their name is searched. For example, it says in the document, “An internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties…Thus, if, following a search made on the basis of a person’s name, the list of results displays a link to a web page which contains information on the person in question, that data subject may approach the operator directly and, where the operator does not grant his request, bring the matter before the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the removal of that link from the list of results.” This essentially grants people with the right to be forgotten, or to have whatever information they should like removed at will. Though this may have a few positive attributes, it also has several negative. For example, it could eliminate the important aspect of consequence from a world so in need of its governing powers. Consequences are what ultimately prevent people from choosing to do the wrong thing – and when people do choose the wrong thing, consequences prevent people from making those choices again. However, in a world where all the wrongdoers and criminals can have the negative aftermath of their actions in their hands and are able to erase information regarding their wrongdoings from the Internet that allows them to break free of the consequences of their actions. To put this into the context of everyday life, imagine what would happen if one of these wrongdoers was running for office. The average American does not have the time to sift through the archives when researching each candidate for office, and most people think a quick Google check of the person will suffice. What if one campaigner had had a criminal record, but asked for it to be removed from Google search results? Disaster and further governmental turmoil could result. These two extremes – the all-remembering NSA and the all-forgetting Google – bring up several important questions. How do both of these methods affect the exercising of the right of free speech? According to the Stanford Law Review, many have belittled the effects of the recent allowance of the right to be forgotten’s effect on free speech while in reality, it has an enormous and negative effect on free speech. For example, in the review, they say, ““…the European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights, and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, announced the European Commission’s proposal to create a sweeping new privacy right—the ‘right to be forgotten’… Although Reding depicted the new right as a modest expansion of existing data privacy rights, in fact it represents the biggest threat to free speech on the Internet in the coming decade.” They go on to further express the harmful effects of this new concept on free speech, saying, “Unless the right is defined more precisely when it is promulgated over the next year or so, it could precipitate a dramatic clash between European and American conceptions of the proper balance between privacy and free speech, leading to a far less open Internet.” Also, does either of these methods work, or is there a happy medium that must be reached for the sake of the United States and national security? Who should make that decision? That is something that only time shall serve to tell.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART TWO: ITS ALL CONNECTED - THE PAST, THE PRESENT, THE FUTURE

Edward Snowden and national security - two subjects that are often found in the same sentence in the present day - certainly affect people of the present day as well as future generations yet to come. Snowden, in fact, may also be connected to the past as well, through ancient writings that apply to and may also be used to criticize what he has done. Take a look at the ripple effect of Snowden's actions - how they affect all kinds of people, and how they even can transcend time. Snowden’s actions undeniably affected the American people. In this digital day and age, how could they not? But how does Snowden – as a person as well as through his actions – measure up to Daniel Ellsberg, a fellow whistle-blower? Daniel Ellsberg was in over his head in regards to the Vietnam War, all the way back in the late 60’s and early 70’s. He had previous military experience, serving in the Marine Corps, and he got even more involved over time, serving in the Pentagon under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. In fact, Ellsberg was the one reported the Gulf of Tonkin incident to McNamara – the main event that lead the United States to get involved in the Vietnam War. So what changed in Ellsberg, that lead him to expose the government’s dirty secrets regarding the government’s involvement in Indochina – who was once, according to Encyclopedia Britannica “an ardent early supporter of the U.S. role in Indochina? The question is not what but who changed Ellsberg, and the answer is Randy Kehler, a jail-bound draft resister who gave Ellsberg a more imminent idea of what the Vietnam War’s impact on Americans. Ellsberg said in a reflection upon this pivotal event in his life, …his words in general showed that he was a stellar American, and that he was going to jail as a very deliberate choice—because he thought it was the right thing to do. There was no question in my mind that my government was involved in an unjust war that was going to continue and get larger. Thousands of young men were dying each year. I left the auditorium and found a deserted men's room. I sat on the floor and cried for over an hour, just sobbing. The only time in my life I've reacted to something like that. Ellsberg proceeded to release to The New York Times the Pentagon Papers in attempt to expose to the American public the wrongdoing and excessive involvement in Indochina that the government had tried to keep a secret. How does this man and his brave actions compare to Edward Snowden? In many ways, they don’t. As a person, one may conclude that Ellsberg is the braver, stronger, and perhaps even the wiser and more intelligent of the two. For one, Snowden attempted to join the Special Forces until a broken leg drove him back home, never to return. On the other hand, Ellsberg served as a platoon leader in the Marines. Also, in regards to bravery and authenticity, Snowden seems to lack these qualities, as what he claims are his motives never seem to add up, and the mere fact that he is hiding in Russia this very moment says something profound about his lack of bravery. Contrastingly, Ellsberg did no such thing; he stood his ground and he did not flee, but rather he fought and took it to the courtrooms. Additionally, Ellsberg’s revelations seem to be more impactful than those of Snowden. For example, Ellsberg was dealing with matters of life and death – American troops were dying in thousands in Vietnam. Who, exactly, is the NSA killing, by going through someone’s Gmail account? Also, Ellsberg was revealing secrets on war, which is safe to say somewhat direr a matter than unwarranted spying conducted by the NSA that is trying to ward off terrorist threats. Which whistle-blower revealed the heftier secret? Edward Snowden, who told the public about the NSA’s unjust attacks on freedom in its attempts to protect the people, or Daniel Ellsberg, who told Americans the truth about the Vietnam War that was taking not only peoples’ freedoms but peoples’ lives? Daniel Ellsberg can be connected to Snowden in more ways than one. They do not just share the title of “whistle-blower”, but Ellsberg recently drew another connection between the two of them in an article he wrote for The Guardian in which he discusses the importance of Snowden’s leaks. Ellsberg incriminates the government’s recent actions and deems them as unconstitutional as he says, “Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.” Ellsberg continues to describe the terrible state that the government of the United States is in, and how the NSA has taken privacy away from American citizens in a way that rivals what the East German Stasi had done long ago, as he says, “The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former ‘democratic republic’ of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of.” He then claims, “Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.” In this statement, he alleges that Snowden, with his actions, acted as the savior trying to allow the American public to know what their government has become. Is the United States, however, so extreme in its actions that it is comparable to the Stasi? In many ways, yes, it is. But in one major important way, they are so dissimilar that this comparison is illegitimate, and that is in the purpose of the Stasi and the purpose of the NSA. The NSA lives to protect Americans from danger, despite the fact that they cross lines that they perhaps should not cross in the process. On that note, the NSA is also focused on fighting off the terrorist threat at all costs. On the other hand, John Koehler of The New York Times’ book Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police serves to explain the purpose of the Stasi which differs vastly with the NSA. In his book, the Stasi, as described by Simon Wiesenthal, a man who spent half of his life hunting down Nazi criminals, “had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.” Unlike the NSA – actually, in a way completely opposite of the NSA – the Stasi inflicted acts of terrorism on its citizens as well as foreigners that were in no way attempts to protect them but rather to oppress them. Though as Ellsberg noted, there are some commonalities between the NSA and the Stasi, there are key differences between them that make these claims illegitimate. Snowden has others who “believe” – perhaps more legitimately – similar to Snowden. Of course, as with any controversy at the forefront of modern day America, there is also opposition. One of these such men who has something to say against not only Snowden’s alleged ideologies but also all accusers of the NSA is General Michael Hayden, a former Air Force General and the former head of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. In a recent debate that took place between NSA supporters and NSA opponents, Hayden made a few key points justifying the actions of the NSA that Snowden and his chosen journalists had revealed. For one, Hayden said that the United States is not the only country who spies on its own citizens as well as the citizens of foreign countries and that the only reason that this – which he thinks should be thought of as the norm – has been deemed controversial and questionable by the American public is because of the media. He pins the great stink in America recently that reeks of privacy violations on journalists who try to frame it as a large issue while it is not in the least. He continues to assign blame to the journalists as being the root of the problem, accusing them – the Washington Post in particular – of exaggerating the NSA’s activities and framing them as something they are not. According to Hayden, contrary to what journalists allege, the NSA does not regularly sift through everyone’s private emails, but rather that they only do so when someone gives them reason to do so. On that note, Hayden also said that this method of collecting all emails is much easier than collecting individual emails – these emails, he claims, are read primarily so as to avoid the terrorist threat. He closes his argument, saying that that fateful day back in September of 2001, 9/11 proved that the enemy exists and is could be here, in the United States, at any moment. Thus, the NSA has a responsibility to protect American citizens. These claims seem to focus on calling out journalists as the cause of the problem in the United States as of late while the NSA was acting justly in an attempt to protect their citizens from the evil – namely, the terrorist threat – that is constantly afoot. On the other hand, what does the opposite end of this spectrum of opinions have to say regarding the NSA’s actions? Glenn Greenwald – one of the journalists who Edward Snowden had drawn out to Hong Kong and to whom he leaked the NSA’s documents – lands among the men ultimately on Snowden’s side of things, as he is not happy with the NSA’s actions which he considers to be unconstitutional. Greenwald, in the same debate in which General Hayden had partaken, begins his argument challenging the NSA to prove that they are tracking the enemy – and that as soon as that is proven, journalists will back off. However, until that is proven, he claims that journalists, including himself, will not back down. He later said that the classic excuse that all of this is being done as a result of the constant terrorist threat from which they are trying to protect innocent American citizens is just that – an excuse, and in his opinion, an excuse that has been overused and whittled down into almost meaninglessness. Greenwald also emphasizes time and time again in his argument that unlike the NSA claims over and over again, their online surveillance is not limited or focused while it rather extends past merely persons of interest but to all Americans who reside in the digital world. He deems it to be aggressive and indiscriminant, contrary to the NSA’s claims, an opinion he expressed when he said, “Over and over in the documents of the NSA…is aggressive boasting about the system of indiscriminant, suspicionless [sic] surveillance that they have constructed in the dark where entire populations…who are guilty of nothing have their communications routinely monitored and surveilled [sic] and stored.” There were also a few statistics on the matter that he referenced. For example, Greenwald said that approximately 100 million people are affected by this unwarranted surveillance, asserting that this surpasses the true number of people of interest by far. Likewise, he presents another piece of numerical data, saying that 1.7 billion telephone calls and emails taking place among Americans are documented by the NSA on a daily basis. He also references a recent court decision that ruled this unwarranted surveillance as unconstitutional. Unlike General Hayden, Glenn Greenwald focuses on questioning the NSA’s true intentions as to why they choose to spy on hundreds of millions of Americans – as he claims that they intended not to use state surveillance as a way to zero in on suspicious and possibly threatening persons of interest but rather to encroach upon all Americans’ privacy. Snowden and his actions can be tied to the past as well, as ancient stories serve to condemn Snowden's actions. As the practically proverbial phrase goes, “There are some things better left unsaid.” Are there also things that are better left unknown? This may be the case after taking a closer look at the Edward Snowden ordeal, for it seems as though as a result of this man trying to play God, havoc was wrought upon the United States as well as the rest of the world. In order to see the detrimental effects of omniscience, one must look to the past – all the way back to the ancient stories of Greek mythology. The myth that truly conveys the ill effects of the all-knowing powers often desired by humans is the story of the origin of the Cyclopes and their single eye. In brief, the Cyclopes asked Zeus for the power to see the future in exchange for one of each of their eyes. Zeus carried out the deal as promised, giving the Cyclopes the power to see the future – the only catch was that he only allowed them to see the day in the future on which they die. In turn, the moral of this story was that when a mortal wishes for the knowledge only the immortal should see, when their wish is granted, the future does not make them any more powerful or happy. Rather, they only end up seeing the bad in the future. Another ancient story that manifests the injurious nature of omniscience in the hands of mortals is found in the Holy Bible – the story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve, despite God’s warnings against it, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which exposed them and all generations of man to come to evil and sin – something they would never have known if not for their choice to choose knowledge over obedience to God. The moral of this story, similar to the moral of the story of the Cyclopes, is that humans do not benefit from omniscience and that the only one who truly needs all-knowing powers is God. How then are Snowden’s actions any different from those of the Cyclopes and Adam and Eve? He says that he wants all data and information to be free to the public rather than having only government officials exposed to it, similar to how the Cyclopes and Adam and Eve wanted the knowledge only the deities had access to in each story. He let this desire for all people to have knowledge of the NSA’s doings control his actions as he proceeded to leak the information to the world, just as the Cyclopes made a deal with Zeus to have the power to see into the future in exchange for one of their eyes and as Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil so that they could know as much as God. The fallouts in all three stories also run parallel to one another. With Edward Snowden, the information that went from merely the hands of the NSA to all people put the United States citizens at risk for danger that the NSA was once able to prevent while the United States’ relationships with other countries were also damaged. With the Cyclopes, their exposure to knowledge only meant for the gods was similarly detrimental in that they only saw the day and way in which they were to die. With Adam and Eve, their eating of the tree exposed them to the evil of sin. In other words, in all three situations, those who desired omniscience became no freer or happier from it, and their accounts served to reveal that omniscience is not something meant for everyone to possess. Instead, those in positions of power – the government or Zeus or God – are the only ones meant to be exposed to such knowledge. As French poet Alphonse de Lamartine says in his poem “L’Homme”, “Our crime is to be a man and want to know…” Snowden and his actions, thus, are an example of the harmful effects of desiring and striving for omniscience – and that was what was truly wrong with what he did.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART TWO: THE ESSENTIAL UNKNOWN

As the practically proverbial phrase goes, “There are some things better left unsaid.” Are there also things that are better left unknown? This may be the case after taking a closer look at the Edward Snowden ordeal, for it seems as though as a result of this man trying to play God, havoc was wrought upon the United States as well as the rest of the world. In order to see the detrimental effects of omniscience, one must look to the past – all the way back to the ancient stories of Greek mythology. The myth that truly conveys the ill effects of the all-knowing powers often desired by humans is the story of the origin of the Cyclopes and their single eye. In brief, the Cyclopes asked Zeus for the power to see the future in exchange for one of each of their eyes. Zeus carried out the deal as promised, giving the Cyclopes the power to see the future – the only catch was that he only allowed them to see the day in the future on which they die. In turn, the moral of this story was that when a mortal wishes for the knowledge only the immortal should see, when their wish is granted, the future does not make them any more powerful or happy. Rather, they only end up seeing the bad in the future. Another ancient story that manifests the injurious nature of omniscience in the hands of mortals is found in the Holy Bible – the story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve, despite God’s warnings against it, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which exposed them and all generations of man to come to evil and sin – something they would never have known if not for their choice to choose knowledge over obedience to God. The moral of this story, similar to the moral of the story of the Cyclopes, is that humans do not benefit from omniscience and that the only one who truly needs all-knowing powers is God. How then are Snowden’s actions any different from those of the Cyclopes and Adam and Eve? He says that he wants all data and information to be free to the public rather than having only government officials exposed to it, similar to how the Cyclopes and Adam and Eve wanted the knowledge only the deities had access to in each story. He let this desire for all people to have knowledge of the NSA’s doings control his actions as he proceeded to leak the information to the world, just as the Cyclopes made a deal with Zeus to have the power to see into the future in exchange for one of their eyes and as Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil so that they could know as much as God. The fallouts in all three stories also run parallel to one another. With Edward Snowden, the information that went from merely the hands of the NSA to all people put the United States citizens at risk for danger that the NSA was once able to prevent while the United States’ relationships with other countries were also damaged. With the Cyclopes, their exposure to knowledge only meant for the gods was similarly detrimental in that they only saw the day and way in which they were to die. With Adam and Eve, their eating of the tree exposed them to the evil of sin. In other words, in all three situations, those who desired omniscience became no freer or happier from it, and their accounts served to reveal that omniscience is not something meant for everyone to possess. Instead, those in positions of power – the government or Zeus or God – are the only ones meant to be exposed to such knowledge. As French poet Alphonse de Lamartine says in his poem “L’Homme”, “Our crime is to be a man and want to know…” Snowden and his actions, thus, are an example of the harmful effects of desiring and striving for omniscience – and that was what was truly wrong with what he did.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART TWO: THE STASI MISINTERPRETATION

Daniel Ellsberg can be connected to Snowden in more ways than one. They do not just share the title of “whistle-blower”, but Ellsberg recently drew another connection between the two of them in an article he wrote for The Guardian in which he discusses the importance of Snowden’s leaks. Ellsberg incriminates the government’s recent actions and deems them as unconstitutional as he says, “Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.” Ellsberg continues to describe the terrible state that the government of the United States is in, and how the NSA has taken privacy away from American citizens in a way that rivals what the East German Stasi had done long ago, as he says, “The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former ‘democratic republic’ of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of.” He then claims, “Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.” In this statement, he alleges that Snowden, with his actions, acted as the savior trying to allow the American public to know what their government has become. Is the United States, however, so extreme in its actions that it is comparable to the Stasi? In many ways, yes, it is. But in one major important way, they are so dissimilar that this comparison is illegitimate, and that is in the purpose of the Stasi and the purpose of the NSA. The NSA lives to protect Americans from danger, despite the fact that they cross lines that they perhaps should not cross in the process. On that note, the NSA is also focused on fighting off the terrorist threat at all costs. On the other hand, John Koehler of The New York Times’ book Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police serves to explain the purpose of the Stasi which differs vastly with the NSA. In his book, the Stasi, as described by Simon Wiesenthal, a man who spent half of his life hunting down Nazi criminals, “had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.” Unlike the NSA – actually, in a way completely opposite of the NSA – the Stasi inflicted acts of terrorism on its citizens as well as foreigners that were in no way attempts to protect them but rather to oppress them. Though as Ellsberg noted, there are some commonalities between the NSA and the Stasi, there are key differences between them that make these claims illegitimate.

NPR Podcast Recap: 'Frontline' Doc Explores How Sept 11 Created Today's NSA

Americans recently have learned thanks to leaks from Edward Snowden that the NSA is spying on them on all their electronic devices - from their phones to their emails. What they do not know is what the motivation behind this spying is. Michael Kirk, the director of a new documentary called Frontline regarding the NSA and their secrets recently uncovered, came to discuss the NSA and the journey it has taken - starting with 9/11 - which may serve as their motivation for what they have done. In the days preceding 9/11, NSA official William Binney introduced "Thin Thread". Thin Thread was the method of NSA surveillance far less aggressive than that of the present day. However, once the tragic events of 9/11 had unfolded, everything changed. William Binney was forgotten, and former Air-Force General Michael Hayden was contacted and essentially asked to be America's savior, to be the man who would change things, to be the man who would allow Americans to leave the dark world of fear they had entered ever since that fateful day. And he did just that. He started the NSA on its way to the level of surveillance that it is at today. Sure, he encountered some opposition. The head of the FBI threatened to resign if they did not put the brakes on this movement of unwarranted spying. He gave, and in 2004, the operation slowed down - but not for long. Also, journalists from The New York Times were moments away from publishing a story in that same year that unveiled to the American public the NSA’s surveillance methods until they were contacted and ultimately threatened by President Bush not to do so. Despite the opposition, nothing could stop the NSA from going where it was going, and the NSA has continued to head in the direction of extreme surveillance until the present day – which, perhaps, means that 9/11 pushed the NSA over the edge and towards this path of extreme surveillance.

ENEMY OF THE STATE PART ONE: WHO IS THIS SNOWDEN AND WHAT HAS HE DONE?

Edward Snowden is no criminal. That is, according to the Constitution of the United States, also referred to as the Supreme Law of the Land. By terms laid out in the Constitution, Edward Snowden did not commit treason against the government of the United States. In Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, it is said that treason “shall consist only in levying War against them [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Did Snowden declare war on the U.S.? Did he head over to an enemy country with gun in hand as he took up arms against the U.S.? No and no. What he did goes beyond the Constitution’s definition of treason, for he did not aid enemies in acts of war but rather in his revelation of thousands of documents he stole and handed over to three journalists – Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, and Barton Gellman. The Federalist Papers, another set of documents of great importance to the United States, go a bit further with their definition of treason, saying “…treason is a crime leveled at the immediate being of the society when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender…” This definition takes into account not only whether one is waging war against the United States in some capacity in order to convict one of treason, but also the impact that the person’s actions have upon American society. In this case, the finger is pointed a bit more at Snowden, for the information he revealed affected most if not all Americans. Despite what the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers say about treason, are there not other ways to define a criminal, a traitor, an enemy? Snowden, even if his impulsive decision does not make him an enemy of the state or a man guilty of treason, has proved himself to rather be an enemy of the people. He caused unrest around the world, and exposed the United States’ method of national security that goes against its own Bill of Rights. But did he offer an alternative to protecting the nation from the terrorist threat? No, he did not. Did he consider how other nations deal with suspicion? Did he consider the alternative to the U.S.’s method of national security, or imagine getting followed around by government thugs, living constantly in fear – the method used in too many countries? No, he did not. He failed to see this, and proceeded to put the people he claimed to be protecting at rest. Snowden: enemy of the state? Nope. Snowden: enemy of the people? Check. Snowden, a traitor? Check. Snowden, a true believer of what he claims to be his ideologies? That is up for debate. Snowden told Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald in an interview, “…you have to make a determination about what it is that’s important to you…You can get up every day, go to work, you can collect your large paycheck for relatively little work against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows. But if you realize that is the world you helped to create, and it’s going to get worse by the next generation and the next generation.” Here, Snowden tries to defend his motives for exposing the NSA’s secret documents, claiming he did it all because he could not live with the secrets his job required him to keep from the American public. A member of the intelligence community similarly ties Snowden’s motives to his ideologies, saying, “Snowden to me is just like the spies in the Cold War who went to work for the Russians because they believed ideologically…with Snowden you seem to have a true believer driven by the proposition that all information should be free.” However, there is something here that does not seem to add up, regarding Snowden’s motives being tied to his ideologies. Why would a man, willing to put it all on the line to uphold his ideologies regarding all information being free, choose to work with the NSA – an organization that tries to deal with information in secret – in the first place? There are also people that say he was motivated in part by his ego. According to Vanity Fair, “For many of those who consider Snowden a traitor, he scores high on the ego motive. They cite the swagger in his Internet postings, the braggadocio of his public statements…” However, as Snowden says in his interview with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, he had it all. He had the job, the money, the house in paradise, all a person could want – what bigger ego trip could there be? And yet, he chose to give it all away. Whatever Snowden’s true motives are, they seem to be unrelated to his ideologies or his ego. Edward Snowden, as a person, can be hard to define, mostly due to his questionable motives. For example, can Snowden be considered a hacker? Yes and no, for a variety of reasons. One reason why Snowden could very well be considered a hacker is due to the details of his young career. In The New York Time’s article entitled “Résumé Shows Snowden Honed Hacking Skills”, an account of Snowden’s career as a hacker is detailed – from his taking “a course that trains security professionals to think like hackers and understand their techniques” to choosing to work with and be a contractor for the NSA, an organization that is all about hacking into other peoples’ information. Many people also can attest to his classification as a hacker, for without being a hacker, he would have never been able to gain access to the classified NSA documents that he proceeded to steal and leak. They also define his job in relation with the government as being a hacker. For example, former NSA official John R. Schindler blatantly referred to Snowden as a hacker when he questioned the legitimacy of Snowden’s background check and allowance for top security clearance. He said, “For years, N.S.A. and now the Cyber Command have struggled with how to relate to the hacker community. It’s obvious that some sort of arrangement to allow hackers to work for N.S.A. and the intelligence community in a systematic way is needed.” Contrarily, when defining a hacker, one must look past the mere facts of a person’s life, and consider the stereotypical definition of a hacker as well. This definition seems only to provide for the kind of tech wizards that live by a different set of rules – hackers who live on the dark side of the Internet whose moral compass seems to be malfunctioning. Does Edward Snowden fit this definition of a hacker? Certainly not. No matter how large the secrets were that he leaked, he does not live the life that most hackers tend to live. Snowden, once again, is ever difficult to define, and hacker is a title that suits him in some ways, and in others, does not. Regardless of who Snowden is or what his motives were for unveiling the dirty secrets of the NSA, there is another, more important question to ask, and that is whether all that he claimed to have done for the betterment of society and the benefit of others was in vain. Did he truly protect Americans from an NSA that was spying just to spy rather than to protect people the often referenced, looming terrorist threat over the United States? Or did he just put an end to spying that was essential for Americans’ safety? The answer lies within the facts. The predominant question that may be asked in regard to this controversy is whether it is more important to be free or to be safe. Those who seem to side with Snowden consider freedom to be of more import than national security. Some even take this argument a step further, saying that in reality, Americans are no safer than they were before and that the disillusioned NSA is fighting a phony war against terrorism. One of these such doubters of the NSA’s alleged intentions is the Cato Institute. In their opening remarks within their article entitled “The Terrorism Delusion” by John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, they say, “This article is a set of ruminations on the post–September 11 years of delusion. It reflects, first, on the exaggerations of the threat presented by terrorism and then on the distortions of perspective these exaggerations have inspired—distortions that have in turn inspired a determined and expensive quest to ferret out, and even to create, the nearly nonexistent. It also supplies a quantitative assessment of the costs of the terrorism delusion and concludes with a discussion of how anxieties about terrorism persist despite exceedingly limited evidence that much fear is justified.” Made evident in this preliminary argument, the Cato Institute considers not only the NSA’s but the response in general to the extreme displays of terrorism that took place September 11, 2001, was similarly extreme and yet unnecessary. They continue to develop this argument as they reference multiple statistics that do not stand in favor of the NSA’s post-9/11 actions against terrorism. For example, they say, “In the eleven years since the September 11 attacks, no terrorist has been able to detonate even a primitive bomb in the United States.” On the other hand, an organization that seemed to assert that Snowden and his actions in particular put America and its relationship with other countries at risk – thus, choosing national security over freedom is the Brookings Institution. On their page dedicated to the Snowden ordeal entitled “The Big Snoop”, they made a case against Snowden’s actions in which he chose liberty over freedom, as they say, “America's diplomacy has been hobbled, its image abroad tarnished, its alliances strained, its government's standing in the eyes of its own people damaged, its policies challenged in court and, in some cases, already undergoing major revision at the behest of the White House.” The Brookings Institute also referenced several statistics in their article in an attempt to support their argument that Snowden’s actions, while having detrimental national and international repercussions, also did not have the effect for which Snowden was allegedly hoping. For example, data from Pew Research was featured in the article stated that Edward Snowden’s leaks had very little effect on Americans’ views and disapproval of government surveillance – the percentage of Americans that disapprove government surveillance only increased from 44% to 53%. All In all, with his recent actions, Snowden deepened the fault lines between people in the United States as they take opposing sides on the issue of national security versus freedom.