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.