Conservatives Are Wrong About NSA Spying
I am surprised that so many traditional conservatives, such as Manhattan Institute senior fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth, are putting aside their normal defense of civil liberties and distrust of the government to support the NSA’s activities. Historically, each threat to our nation, including both World Wars and the Cold War, has been followed by an aggressive government response against perceived threats. In hindsight, we have regretted these overreactions.
There are four reasons why conservatives should oppose the NSA’s current activities. First, absent major legislative changes, the NSA cannot be adequately supervised by Congress and the Administration. Within the last few years, there are numerous examples of security agencies misleading Congress, the White House, and the courts. These include National Intelligence Director James Clapper’s infamous testimony before Congress and federal agencies in which he mislead judges as to the origin of evidence used in criminal trials. The leaders of security agencies tend to see themselves as a crucial line of defense against America’s enemies and think that political oversight is a hindrance that should be passively resisted rather than welcomed as a vital Constitutional protection. That largely explains why they have been so stunned at the public reaction to Edward Snowden’s disclosures.
Second, these efforts are largely ineffective. The Administration has worked hard to point to examples where the widespread collection of miscellaneous information has disrupted a terrorist plot. They have not found one. At best, they have been able to point to information that was relevant to or helpful in a broader effort. These efforts are not worth the money America spends on them, especially when the funds could be directed to more-effective, individualized surveillance. More importantly, massive data collection distracts people from the much harder job of collecting useful intelligence. It makes no sense for the NSA to spend billions in taxpayer money to collect more data when doing so is similar to finding a needle by simultaneously adding more hay to the haystack. It is an expensive and ineffective way of producing intelligence, which is a very difficult and hands-on business. The agencies often talk themselves into believing that technology can substitute for infiltrating groups, building relationships, and cultivating networks—but nothing can replace these proven methods.
Third, the deceit involved in past activities has significantly harmed the competitiveness of U.S. companies. It may be true that other OECD countries spy to an even greater extent. But it is fairly predictable that foreign citizens do not feel comfortable giving the U.S. government access to all their phone calls, emails, shared files, etc. They have therefore insisted that companies store information in a local server, even though that significantly harms their competitiveness. Foreign governments are also likely to prohibit companies from giving the data to the U.S. government, putting the companies in an impossible situation since the U.S. government takes the position that it can compel the disclosure of much of that information—even without a warrant. Daniel Castro of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has estimated the initial negative impact on U.S. companies from these dynamics to be between $22 billion and $35 billion.
Finally, given the asymmetric nature of cyber communication, the United States is far better off having robust encryption and secure computer networks that no one can hack into, even the NSA. The government should be helping companies establish these systems, but instead it has been building back doors. As a result, its reputation within the private community has been severely damaged. That plays to the relative strength of countries including North Korea, Russia, and China who cannot compete with America militarily, but can inflict substantial damage with a building full of hackers. Isolated fears of being unable to stop a lone wolf must be offset by the much greater cost continually being imposed by unsecure communication and storage networks. Imagine if the billions spent by the government collecting data was instead spent towards securing it.
Furchtgott-Roth also suggests that Americans do not actually care about privacy. After all, look at all the information people freely give to companies such as Google. However, there is a difference between giving information to private companies and to the government. Americans can sue Google—the government can put people in jail. Companies provide (often free) services that have a great deal of value. Alternatively, Americans cannot opt out of mass government surveillance. Conservatives should always be cautious about giving government even broader powers.
Make no mistake, the United States faces serious security issues. But expanding government’s ability to collect information in secret will not address these problems. If Americans are going to give government the ability to access information, then the country needs what Senator Rand Paul has been advocating—an open debate on exactly what information is being collected, what it can be used for, and what the government must show before looking at the information. There also needs to be visible checks to ensure that the information is not misused. That is difficult to accomplish when the one side has a history of secrecy and deceit.
Too often Americans have allowed themselves to believe that the country can achieve success simply by spending more money, relying on proxies, or delegating work to people safely ensconced in an office building. But successfully dealing with the challenges posed by Middle East, the South China Sea, and Russia is going to require reform of both military and security agencies. In the long-run there is no substitute for reengaging with the world on a realistic basis.
Joseph V. Kennedy, former chief economist of the Department of Commerce and former general counsel to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, is a senior fellow with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, e21 delivers a short email that includes e21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the e21 Morning eBrief.