Intro:
Surveillance programs were instituted to protect people from danger. Instead, they stripped any remaining shred of privacy from people’s lives. In the wake of 9/11, the NSA established a massive and warrantless domestic spying program. This program, which would come to be leaked by justice-seeking whistleblowers, captured the bulk of digital communication both in and out of the United States. In “United States of Secrets,” a Frontline documentary by Michael Kirk, these programs are brought to light and their legality is questioned. Kirk focuses on the revelations from several famous whistleblowers: Edward Snowden, Diane Roark, Thomas Tamm, and Thomas Drake. He argues that the domestic spying programs is illegal and infringes on
…show more content…
Alerting the viewers to the scope and danger of program, Kirk, through forceful diction and visual rhetoric, creates a concerned tone while remaining resolute to the program’s illegality. Developing this tone, in an interview clip, Diane Roark speaks how she responded when she learned of the program’s existence: “I argued it was unethical, illegal, and unconstitutional, and when this comes out, all hell is going to break loose” (00:00:56 - 00:01:06). All while the interviewees express their disapproval of the program, images and videos in the documentary depict images of surveillance networks, buildings, and tools. Designed to make the audience concerned, the documentary announces that the program intercepts and stores the private data of both American citizens and people worldwide. These choices inform the reader of the existence of this once top-secret program and immediately makes them question it. After the introduction, the viewers are primed continue learning about the program but seeds of doubt have been …show more content…
As Snowden anonymously attempts to get in contact with journalist Glenn Greenwald, Snowden requires very special precautions: encryption, anonymity, and vague mysterious details. In an interview with Greenwald, he asserts that Snowden told him,“If the US intelligence committee believed that by getting rid of me, they could prevent this story from happening, my life would be at risk” (00:03:45 - 00:03:51). Kirk then continues to show various means Snowden needed to use to keep his whistleblowing a secret. By presenting Snowden’s methods of secrecy, the documentary reveals that the surveillance programs were real and to keep privacy intact, methods must be used to bypass them. Disclosing the dangers facing Snowden, the documentary shows that the programs presented real threats to life, liberty, and justice because, if Snowden had been discovered, he would have been shut down, or worse. Kirk’s use of imagery creates a grim tone which proves to the audience that the program must be egregious if whistleblowers are willing to lose their life and liberty over
McCraw, David, and Stephen Gikow. “The End to a Unspoken Bargain? National Security and Leaks in a Post-Pentagon Papers World.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48.2 (2013): 473-509. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
Kevin M. Gallagher. 2013. Freedom of the Press Foundation. Glenn Greenwald, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'. Video file posted on YouTube on June 9, 2013.
Reviewing the experiments five years later, one secrecy-conscious CIA auditor wrote: “Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but also to conceal these activities from the American public in general. The knowledge that the agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles.” Though many of the documents related to MKULTRA were destroyed by the CIA in 1972, some records relating to the program have made it into the public domain. And the work of historians, investigative reporters, and various congressional committees has resulted in the release of enough information to make MKULTRA one of the most disturbing instances of intelligence community abuse on record. As writer Mark Zepezauer puts it, “the surviving history is nasty enough.”
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
With the introduction of the internet being a relatively new phenomenon, the act of cyber espionage is not something that has been properly acknowledged by society. The American Government has done a stand up job of keeping its methods in the shadows and away from the eyes of its people since its documented domestic surveillance began on October 4th, 2001; Twenty three days after the Twin Towers fell President George Bush signed an order to begin a secret domestic eavesdropping operation, an operation which was so sensitive that even many of the country's senior national security officials with the...
Domestic Surveillance: Is domestic surveillance worth the hassle? In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the American people that the National Security Agency had been spying on them. Not only that, but also on world leaders. Domestic surveillance is understood as the first line of defense against terrorism, but it has many downsides, not only it violates Americans lives, also it spies on our social media, it puts a fine line on their privacy, and it is a big stab at the freedom of speech. According to John W. Whitehead, “The fact that the government can now, at any time, access entire phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and other communications from months or years past should frighten every American.”
In early June 2013, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former defense contractor who had access to NSA database while working for an intelligence consulting company, leaked classified documents reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is recording phone calls of millions of Americans along with gathering private data and spying foreign Internet activity. The Washington Post later broke the news disclosed PRISM, a program can collect data on Internet users. The leaked documents publicly stated a vast objection. Many people were shocked by the scale of the programs, even elected representatives were unaware of the surveillance range. A nationwide debate over privacy rights have been sparked. Although supporters claim that the NSA only does its best to protect the United States from terrorists as well as respecting Americans' rights and privacy, many civil rights advocates feel that the government failed to be clear about the limit of the surveillance programs, threatening Americans' civil...
Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the extent of the N.S.A breaches of American privacy and in doing so, became ostracized by the media and barred from freely reentering America, his home country.
In this essay, I will address at least two stances on the issue: The NSA’s official standpoint, and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) standpoint on the
The Web. 4 Dec. 2013. Calamur, Krishnadev. A.P.S. & B.A.S. 5 Things To Know About The NSA's Surveillance Activities. NPR.com - "The New York Times" NPR, n.d. -
There was little talk about what reforms would occur within the government, and much discussion about what Snowden should do. In the article “Yes, Edward Snowden is a Traitor”, Zachary Keck argues that it was not the items Snowden leaked that put him in the wrong, but the way he leaked them. Even the adversaries of Snowden are only concerned with his character. But why is that? No Place to Hide also explains the government’s influence over mainstream media.
Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower, depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets, aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions.
It is reasonable to argue that, governmental institutions or people with authority are subject to withhold a great deal of information from society. Many may argue that secrets are kept to ensure the safety of the nation. Thus, upholding the governmental duty of protecting the nation against possible threats. On the other hand, many believe that secrets may exist which violate our constitutional rights. Over the last year, Edward Snowden, has made headline news for leaking sensitive governmental information to the press. Edward Snowden is a 29-year-old high school drop-out, who was a tech specialist for the National Security Association. Snowden had discovered and later exposed the NSA for monitoring the nations e-mails, phone calls, and internet searches. As the allegations spread like wild fire, Edward Snowden sought asylum in Russia for one year. Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens.
The Web. The Web. 28 Oct. 2015. The "Edward Snowden Biography." Bio.com.