Master Thesis

1
MODERN THREAT TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS: JUSTIFICATION FOR
NSA’S DOMESTIC BULK DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
A Master Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
American Public University
by
Timothy Jay Frampton
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Masters of Arts
April 2014
American Public University
Charles Town, West Virginia

2
The author hereby grants the American Public University System the right to display these
contents for educational purposes.
The author assumes total responsibility for meeting the requirements set by United States
Copyright Law for the inclusion of any materials that are not the author’s creation or in the
public domain.
© Copyright 2014 by Timothy Jay Frampton
All rights reserved.

3
DEDICATION
I dedicate this paper to all APUS professors, my family and friends. Without their
patience, guidance, support and understanding, the completion of this project would not have
been possible.

4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to thank the professors and staff for providing their time, guidance and instruction
throughout my academic course work at American Public University. I want to especially thank
Professor Joseph DiRenzo whom I first met taking INTL501; Strategic Intelligence, Professor
DiRenzo provided his time, guidance and most importantly his encouragement without his help I
would not be presenting my capstone paper.
Special thanks go to a few individuals who extended their hands for support and deserve
special attention Alin Voicu and Jeffery Glass. Without their encouragement and support I would
have never dreamt an undertaking as this.
Most importantly I want to thank my wife Dana and daughter Ana-Maria for their love,
sacrifices, and support throughout this endeavor. They helped me stay focused and ensured I did
not go insane. Without their continued love and support this past two years I would not have
made it this far. Thank you all.

5
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
MODERN THREAT TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS: JUSTIFICATION FOR
NSA’S DOMESTIC BULK DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
by
Timothy Jay Frampton
American Public University System, April 13, 2014
Charles Town, West Virginia
Joseph DiRenzo, PhD. Capstone Professor
The hysteria following the September 11, 2001, attacks on American soil gave rise to a
new urgency in U.S. policy to strengthen U.S. counterterrorism efforts and significantly boost
the federal government’s capabilities in collecting and analyzing intelligence data. Based on an
extensive analysis of the current debate in mainstream and alternative media, its participants and
their concerns, this study examines the exigencies of our nation’s security in today’s political and
technological climate, and seeks to resolve the question of whether the NSA’s domestic
surveillance of U.S. Citizens outweighs the civil liberty interests of those citizens the NSA seeks
to protect. It concludes that the current state of the law and practice requires reform, an idea
hardly subject to debate among the actors. It also finds that the U.S. Constitution does provide
the framework for such a reform without further amendments. Finally, the study finds support for

6
the view that even with reforms in the law and practice of surveillance, one of the topics that
require further social research is finding and deploying ways and means to mitigate the public’s
complacency and increase its awareness and participation in the management of its own data.

7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................8
II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................13
III. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................37
IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS .........................................................................................39
The Development of the NSA’s Domestic Surveillance Policy .......................................44
The Controversy of the NSA’s Domestic Surveillance Program ......................................50
The Benefits of the NSA’s Domestic Surveillance Program.............................................56
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................59
LIST OF REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................64

8
“I’m glad that the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our
country. I’m glad that activity is going on, but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected
to be terrorists and who they may be talking to… Yes, I am sure that that’s what they’re doing.”
- Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina
INTRODUCTION
Since September 11, 2001, the citizens of this country have lived in fear of another
terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In response, the United States government has stepped up its
intelligence gathering efforts, both foreign and domestic. These efforts include the addition of
new agencies and laws that have significantly expanded the scope of foreign intelligence
gathering by the federal government.
The most significant of these changes in U.S. policy has been in the area of intelligence
gathering by the National Security Agency (NSA). Created on November 4, 1952, by the
Truman Administration, the NSA’s function was dictated by the perceived threats of that day.
These threats emanated from the fears brought forth by the Cold War and gave rise to the two
broad areas of responsibility originally assigned to the NSA. These were “cryptanalysis” or the
“collection and analysis of non-U.S. (foreign) communications” and “cryptography” or the
“protection of United States government communications and Information Systems from
penetration by foreign governments” (Glass 2010). These areas of responsibility focused the
efforts of the NSA outward and toward deterring other nation states from attacking the U.S. from
outside the borders. “The Information Assurance mission confronts the formidable challenge of
preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security
information. The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence

9
information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support
military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists
and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of
privacy and civil liberties” (NSA Mission Statement 2011). Consequently, intelligence collection
by the NSA was not oriented toward spying on American citizens.
From 1978 to 2001, Congress had put in place a series of protections against the possible
abuse of domestic surveillance of U.S. Citizens. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (FISA), 50 U.S.C. Ch. 36, only permitted the government to engage in electronic
surveillance in the United States to obtain foreign intelligence information if the government
could establish to the satisfaction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that it
had probable cause to believe that the “target” of the surveillance was an “agent of a foreign
power.” The features implemented within FISA reflected Congress’ distinction between
surveillance for purposes of criminal prosecution (wiretapping) and foreign intelligence
gathering.
Important to this distinction under FISA and central to the inquiry of this research study,
is the qualitative data investigation drawn from a combination of sources including court records,
government reports, scholarly peer reviewed article sources, websites from public available
sources, main stream and alternative media outlets, newspapers, video documentaries, journal
articles and government publications by discerning the differences between eavesdropping on
conversations and monitoring metadata reflective of these conversations. These distinctions
reflected not only the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution, but also
Congress’ desire to strike a balance between the need to provide for the “security” and the

10
“liberty” of our population. A qualitative judgment is applied to this data to assess, based on their
frequency, intensity, author, source, and the prevailing opinions of the topic at hand.
However, the hysteria of September 11, 2001, gave rise to a new urgency to strengthen
U.S. counterterrorism efforts and significantly boost the federal government’s capabilities to
collect and analyze communication information on a broader scale. In response, Congress passed
an amendment to FISA called the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” (Patriot Act 2002) Public Law
Pub.L. 107-56, which under Section 215 gives the authority to monitor, without search warrants,
the telephone calls, internet activity (web searches, downloads, emails, etc.), text messaging, and
other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the
other end of the communication lies within the U.S.
This change in the law has given the NSA essentially unlimited authority to conduct
surveillance on U.S. citizens in order to protect national security. However, the recent
disclosures by Edward Snowden have revealed that all U.S. communications have been digitally
cloned by the NSA. Two main positions have crystallized around the issue: that this unlimited
collection of personal information is necessary to protect U.S. citizens from terroristic plots that
have been hatched and carried out on U.S soil; and, on the other hand, that it constitutes an
unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
The importance of bulk metadata collection surveillance by the NSA will improve both
intelligence and preparation and will allow warning and response to work together
synergistically to provide enhanced security for the United States because our security depends
on the warnings and what proper responses to divert any potential terrorist aggression on the

11
United States. The intelligence community cannot run an affective intelligence service or
operation without keeping secrets; in this case the NSA has to keep secrets in order to keep the
United States safe from potential enemies outside and within the country’s borders. The NSA
cannot allow total transparency with every intelligence operation they engage in, some level of
discretion is required. The NSA’s purpose in domestic bulk metadata collection and surveillance
on its U.S. citizens is to prevent future terrorist attacks both within and outside our country’s
borders.
In its declassified Transition 2001 Policy Statement, “the NSA asserts that the agency’s
expanded domestic surveillance mission is essential in protecting the U.S. critical information
structure that has been made more vulnerable to foreign intelligence efforts and operations”
(Richelson 2001, 31). Its Policy Statement declares that this vulnerability extends not only to the
traditional classified national security networks, but also to the private sector infrastructure upon
which the new digital information age depends. The NSA justifies its domestic surveillance
program by citing the need to “keep up” with the rapid deployment of new private sector
information technology into global networks, which is expanding the volume, velocity and
variety of information requiring the NSA to respond quickly and comprehensively.
There are controversies surrounding the NSA’s purpose in domestic bulk data collection
and surveillance on its U.S. citizens. Since the Edward Snowden affair, there has been an endless
debate among politicians, mainstream media, alternative media and the public, the essence of
which examines the potential for the NSA’s domestic surveillance program violating the U.S.
Constitution. The debate weighs the benefit of protecting U.S. citizens against terrorist acts with
the potential loss of their civil liberties. The controversy is centered on the implied danger of
using the metadata collected to impose police state-type restrictions and controls on regular

12
citizens and political figures. President Obama seemed to think that “bulk collection program as
useful and lawful while at the same time acknowledging concerns about privacy and potential
abuse” (Savage 2014). On the other hand, Richard A. Clarke former the cybersecurity advisor
under President George W. Bush strongly asserts that, “ with its vast surveillance programs has
the potential to create an authoritarian government in the United States. “In terms of collecting
intelligence, they are very good far better than you could imagine, but they (NSA) have created,
with the growth of technologies, the potential for a police state” (Ernst 2014).
This study examines the threats and the benefits of the NSA’s domestic surveillance
program. Specifically considered is whether the NSA’s stated intention of deterring potential
terrorist attacks within the U.S. by eavesdropping on suspected domestic terrorists is being
achieved, or whether the implementation of its domestic surveillance program is more prone to
being misused for social and political purposes. This study will answer the question and resolve
the debate about whether the NSA’s domestic surveillance program that collects the bulk
metadata and personal information about U.S. citizens is sufficiently tailored to justify its
intrusion onto the civil liberties of the citizenry, or whether such intrusion presents an
unjustifiable and overly expansive program that violates the 4th Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
This debate weighs the competing values and our nation’s commitment to both “provide
for the common defense” and to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to the citizens of these United
States. It is the intersection of these two fundamental values that this study examines.
Specifically, considered is whether the demands of our nation’s security in today’s political and
technological climate justify the NSA’s program of domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens,
thereby outweighing the civil liberty interests of those citizens the NSA seeks to protect.

13
LITERATURE REVIEW
A large portion of the literature takes a serious position on the U.S. government’s policy
on bulk data collection and surveillance on U.S. citizens—one way or the other. The challenge is
to discover a balance between benefits in security and concerns surrounding over-intrusion upon
personal liberties and freedoms in regards to the NSA’s fairly exhaustive and detailed data
collection and surveillance program on US citizens. Since the Edward Snowden affair, there has
been an endless debate among politicians, mainstream media, alternative media and U.S.
citizens, questioning violations of civil liberties under the U.S. Constitution regarding the NSA’s
surveillance program and has appeared regularly in academically appropriate literature. A great
majority of legislation, for instance, involving expansion efforts of the NSA’s unlimited
authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens stems from the goal of protecting national
security; much of the literature takes on this critical position. The NSA surveillance program is
emphasized as intruding upon personal liberties and freedoms while strengthening the
capabilities to defend against any potential terrorist attacks within the United States. The
approach used to gather evidence is vital in defending U.S. citizens against another terrorist
attack remains a common theme on the war on terror.
The literature reviewed in this study emerges from two bodies of thought that either (1)
defend the NSA’s surveillance program as a necessary evil given the modern terroristic threat
within our nation’s border, or (2) take the position that the NSA’s domestic surveillance program
seriously encroaches upon the civil liberties of U.S. citizens and therefore must be abandoned or
substantially modified in order to protect those civil liberties. The method of information
gathering will use a combination of forms ranging from scholarly peer reviewed articles sources,
websites from public available sources, main stream and alternative media outlets, newspapers,

14
video documentaries, journal articles and government publications. While the perceptions will be
documented, one limitation of this research approach is related to its historical method which
may exhibit availability bias. This limitation will be addressed by examining at least one source
from each of the two ends of the American political spectrum, conservative and liberal, yielding
two data points for each of the turning points under consideration while maintaining a fair and
balance approach.
History Channel’s NSA’s Echelon: The Most Secret Spy System (2011) examines how
governments gather communication information on a broad scale, indiscriminately capturing
private conversations, e-mail messages, and internet downloads of people innocent of any
national or international crimes. However, they also capture conversations of people that have
the capability of harming the United States and its allies. The History Channel investigates one
of the weapons used on the war on terror the NSA’s secret surveillance network called Echelon.
This program was developed in 1971 during the Cold War. Echelon was designed to
intercept worldwide non-military communications including those from governments,
organizations, businesses, and individuals. It could intercept practically any communication
between, and often within, countries anywhere in the world. Advanced technologies have
provided governments with virtually unchecked wealth of surveillance devices and interception
capacity” “It was through Echelon that the United States agents were able to monitor cell phone
calls on suspected terrorist in Pakistan, and then arrest a top ranking member of Al Qaeda in
2003” (Echelon 2003). “The NSA’s Project Echelon was used for a vast network automated
global interception and relay systems that intercept encryption and hi-tech satellite based
communications operated by the intelligence agencies and intelligence sharing partnerships
between five nations: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.

15
Although beneficial, Echelon raises a problem; is it truly used to deter terrorism and
eavesdrop on suspected American terrorists, or does it intrude on the privacy of simple domestic
citizens? From an educational perspective”, Echelon: The Most Secret Spy System illustrates the
NSA’s has been gathering communications information for over 41 years. “After 9/11, the NSA
capability of collecting data was increased on a broader scale to intercept private messages
anywhere around the globe makes it a dream come true for spying of all sorts and a nightmare
for citizens’ privacy” (Echelon 2003).
Andrew Glass’ (2010) article The National Security Agency Is Established, Nov. 4, 1952
by President Harry S. Truman claims that the formation of this agency is considered “the most
secret and far-reaching component of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, officially came into being”
(Glass 2010). The main purpose for this new agency during the Cold war was to gather bulk data
and electronic surveillance intelligence activities on the Soviet Union. These threats emanated
from the fears brought forth by the Cold War and gave rise to the two broad areas of
responsibility originally assigned to the NSA. The first of these was signals intelligence or
“SIGINT,” which involves cryptanalysis or the “collection and analysis of non-US (foreign)
communications.” (Glass 2010). The second was purely defensive in nature and involves
cryptography or the “protection of United States government communications and Information
Systems from penetration by foreign governments.” (Glass 2010).
There were controversies during the Cold War surrounding the NSA’s bulk metadata and
surveillance activities. There were also concerns at the time that the NSA was also engaged in
conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens. Glass notes in the article that “the NSA has also been
charged with running a global surveillance network that purportedly intrudes on the privacy of
U.S. citizens who pose no threat to national security, Congressional hearings at the time later

16
stripped away some of the secrecy surrounding NSA” (Glass 2010). This exemplifies the debate
that the NSA has engaged in surveillance activates in gathering bulk data and electronic
surveillance information for over 41 years on U.S. citizens and foreign governments.
Jeffrey Richelson (2000) The National Security Agency Declassified describes the NSA’s
main purpose in domestic bulk data collection and surveillance on its U.S. citizens is to prevent
terrorist attacks both within and outside our country’s borders. “The NSA asserts that the
agency’s expanded domestic surveillance mission is essential in protecting the U.S. critical
information structure that has been made more vulnerable to foreign intelligence efforts and
operations” (Richelson 2000). Richelson article affirms that this vulnerability extends not only to
the traditional classified national security networks but also to the private sector infrastructure
upon which the new digital information age depends on. The NSA has been called upon to keep
up with the rapid deployment of new private sector information technology into global networks
which is expanding the volume, velocity and variety of information requiring the NSA to
respond quickly and comprehensively.
Consequently, the NSA’s mission in the 21st century has changed significantly. In the
past, “NSA operated in a mostly analog world of point-to-point communications carried along
discrete, dedicated voice channels” (Richelson 2000). Most of these communications were in the
air and could be accessed using conventional means. Although the volume of data was growing it
was manageable and could be processed and exploited. “Now, as technology has evolved,
communications are mostly digital, carry billions of bits of data, and contain voice data and
multimedia” (Richelson 2000). Richelson explains that keeping up with the advancement with
technology requires the NSA to respond quickly and comprehensively to any potential warnings
and indications involving terroristic plots against the United States and its citizens.

17
Hodge, Kim and Makhoul, Reem (2013) documentary; The NSA's Evolution:
Surveillance in a Post-9/11 World, looks back into history from the time when the “NSA was
founded in 1952” and notes that “the foreign surveillance intelligence act of 1978 limited the
NSA’s surveillance capabilities in gathering and storing intelligence data obtained mainly
through clandestine means” (Hodge, Channon, Makhoul 2013). After the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001 the NSA initiated a change in its surveillance program. President Bush had
vowed to the American people that the federal government, within the law, would protect against
another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Hodge, Kim and Makhoul provide a narrative regarding the
Bush administrations initiatives providing funding to build new facilities around the country and
stationing more officers overseas to extend the NSA’s reach to combat terrorism.
The NSA's Evolution: Surveillance in a Post-9/11 World, examines 2013 as a year of
inquiry for the National Security Agency this scrutiny beginning with leaks of classified
information from NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked classified material to
journalists, those leaks illustrated how far reaching the NSA surveillance capabilities have
evolved. These surveillance capabilities into private data collection by the government can be
seen as a reflection of uneasiness within the U.S. public. The documentary emphasize limitations
of surveillance examples chronicled “Taliban activates in Afghanistan but failed to stop the
attack on the Hotel Continental in Kabul” (Hodge, Channon, Makhoul 2013). Also collecting
information on “Syria’s chemical arsenal but the information gathered could not be used to
prevent an attack on Damascus” (Hodge, Channon, Makhoul 2013). The NSA's Evolution:
Surveillance in a Post-9/11 World documentary present a valid contrast on the benefits and
concerns the American public has on metadata collection and surveillance.

18
Frank Hagler (2012) is a technology consultant and conversation enthusiast. His article 5
Ways America Has Changed Forever address five significant impacts on U.S. citizens a decade
after 9/11 and how these impacts has change American lives forever. Hagler provides the list in
which the U.S. has changed since 9/11, “Travel, The Department of Homeland Security, Anti-
Islam Sentiment, Our Language and The World Trade Center” (Hagler 2012). His article
provides examples detailing the five substantial impacts on Americans a generation after 9/11.
The most significant change was air transportation. Hagler states that the “Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) implemented procedures that included stricter guidelines on
passenger and luggage screening. Only ticketed passengers could go through security. Body
scanners and new procedures were introduced to search for weapons and other contraband”
(Hagler, 2012).
Hagler article also examines The Homeland Security Act of 2002 which created a
number of existing and new governmental agencies. The most notable include: DHS, TSA,
FEMA, National Guard and the Secret Service which combine these services to interoperability
support between all agencies. Hagler provides insight into issues regarding hate crimes towards
law abiding Muslim communities, radical profiling, American television, that capitalized new
opinions characterizing Muslims as evil. Hagler examines the words and phrases used after 9/11,
“The Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation, drone attacks, al Qaeda, sleeper cells, waterboarding,
ground zero and the Taliban. Prior to 9/11 words and phrases used were War on Poverty, and the
War on Drugs” (Hagler, 2012). For the purpose of this study the article 5 Ways America Has
Changed Forever provides information concerning perceptions by U.S. citizens on data
collection and surveillance while questioning American civil liberties.

19
James Ball is a special projects editor for The Guardian, his documentary The NSA and
Surveillance ... Made Simple examines the understanding how the NSA is collecting bulk data on
Americans. “Now that almost all of us are on line, connected or digital in some way spies are no
longer just watching just one or two bad guys instead the NSA is collecting a massive amount of
information form the things we do on the phones and over the internet” (Ball 2013). Ball’s
documentary explains in detail how the NSA is able to gather the information. “There are two
main ways they get hold of this information; one way is to work with companies that run these
systems and tap the cables that are vital in moving this information all around” (Ball 2013).
The NSA can sort out the massive amounts of bulk data and the information they receive
can be stored in data bases. For example, the new NSA data storage facility located in Bluffdale,
Utah can store a vast amount of metadata gathered for collection and surveillance analysis. This
documentary goes on the reveal there are other methods that involves using technology to collect
metadata those are companies identified are; Facebook, Google, and Yahoo, these platforms are
used to retrieve e-mails, text or additional information from the core of corporate services. The
NSA and Surveillance ... Made Simple notes the bulk data collection retrieved by the NSA what
is done with the wealth of information? “The NSA throws most of the content away they collect
they keep on their systems for about three days. Then discard everything that is not form one of
their targets” (Ball 2013). The collection of metadata from Americans is another matter
altogether. The metadata collected by the NSA “keeps almost all the metadata they see for one
year” (Ball 2013). Collecting metadata is like a puzzle, the pieces are made of, in this case
people, with a vast network of profiles connected to other profiles of people who communicate
with each other. With this data the NSA is capable of locating anybody, anytime, and anywhere.

20
The documentary questions the balance between privacy and the NSA duty to protect
U.S. citizens. “The governments of America and the UK argue that these surveillance programs
help keep us safe from terrorism” (Ball 2013). The documentary goes on to question what
happens if a citizen is wrongly accused of any potential terrorist acts. There were no concrete
answers adding to the discussion: should U.S. citizens just accept that the internet is a different
place ran by corporations and governments who can monitor everyone’s activity and prosecute
those who are suspected of planning terrorist acts. The NSA and Surveillance ... Made Simple
gives an alternative view on the NSA’s collection and surveillance protocols. This documentary
also solidifies the bulk data collection and surveillance program pretense examination of: how
many terrorists did the NSA catch today or how many innocent citizens did the NSA violate their
privacy today and the need for balance between actual act of terror and invasion of privacy.
Adam Silverman (2014) is an associate editor of the Burlington Free Press in his latest
news article, NSA Chief Denies Spying on Congress discusses a conversation between NSA
Chief General Keith Alexander and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont that the government is
not spying on representatives of Congress. During the questioning Gen Alexander responds “the
agency can make no guarantee that representatives and senators have not had their telephone
metadata caught up in a broad government sweeps. Nothing NSA does can fairly be
characterized as 'spying on members of Congress or other American elected officials, including
of the “government's intelligence-gathering activities have targeted leaders of friendly foreign
nations” (Silverman 2014). This article suggests that the NSA cannot guarantee that member of
both political parties and world leaders have not had been targeted in any data surveillance.
Silverman points out that “telephone metadata program incorporates extraordinary controls to
protect Americans' privacy interests” (Silverman 2014).

21
Adam further discusses Senator Bernie is advocating that there is a need to protect the
United States from another terrorist attack while protecting the constitutional rights of U.S.
citizens. Only under certain conditions will the NSA access telephone metadata on any suspected
American they feel is involved with terrorist groups. Finding the balance between intrusions is
an evolving public debate and perceptions of NSA’s activities and their effect on the political
debate for potential misuse on a broader scale.
Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor specializing in International Relations at The
George Washington University. Etzioni served under the Carter Administration as Senior
Advisor to the White House from 1979-1980. Etzioni has authored several books and articles on
American civil liberties, individual rights on U.S. citizens, and national security. His article
National Security vs. Individual Rights exposes two surveillance programs the NSA was leading.
One is known as “Bulk Collection of Telephone Metadata’, which collects, stores, and analyzes
the records of a significant portion of the phone calls made and received in the United States
(from here on ‘phone surveillance’). The other, known as PRISM, collects private electronic
communications from a number of major online providers such as Google and Facebook and is
focused on non-Americans” (Etzioni 2014). Etzioni article provides insights on several fronts, to
continue to enhance national security, the need of balance between security and none
infringement on privacy, ensure there are no violations within the Constitution and
accountability of both programs. For the purpose of this examination Etzioni has offered insight
on how to balance both national security and individual rights.
Madison Ruppert (2013) is an editor for an alternative news outlet called “End the Lie”,
his article Holder: NSA Leaks Damage US Security focuses on Attorney General Eric Holder’s
claim that NSA leaker Edward Snowden has caused serious damage to U.S. national security.

22
“The information leaked about the massive surveillance program run by the National
Security Agency (NSA) is “extremely damaging” to U.S. national security without explaining
how it is actually damaging” (Ruppert 2013). His article provides insights that Attorney General
Holder restated the claim that the NSA’s bulk data collection and surveillance program did not
target any phone record or conversations of a particular American citizen. “That PRISM was
aimed only at facilitating the acquisition of foreign intelligence information on targets outside
the U.S.” (Ruppert 2013). The program is only used if it is “reasonably believed” that the
“foreign target” of the surveillance is outside of the U.S. and suspected of being somehow
involved in terrorism, cybercrime or nuclear proliferation” (Ruppert 2013). Holder: NSA Leaks
Damage U.S. Security illustrates an alternative view point that the importance of national
security concerns are critical, that individual rights are inflexible.
Charlie Savage (2014) is a correspondent for the New York Times based in Washington
D.C. He has written articles relating to national security, legal policy, and presidential power. In
his recent article N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End, he discusses the “National Security
Agency’s program to collect bulk phone call records has provided only “minimal” benefits in
counterterrorism efforts, is illegal and should be shut down” (Savage 2014). Savage discusses
how the NSA’s enhanced surveillance program of collecting bulk phone records began with the
Bush administration in 2001, authorizing the collection of phone records based on the Patriot Act
in 2001; to date President Obama so far has supported this program. His article provides insight
into the Obama administration and reveals that “bulk collection program as useful and lawful
while at the same time acknowledging concerns about privacy and potential abuse” (Savage
2014).

23
Savage discusses the recommendations by President Obama to restrict and limit analysts
to access telephone metadata on Americans only if the analysts have evidence that Americans are
suspected as being involved with terrorist groups. Savage’s article criticizes the continuing
debate of using the program to collect bulk phone call records on Americans and if it has
successfully stopped any present terrorist threats or terrorist attacks on the United States. N.S.A.
Program Is Illegal and Should End raises interesting augments of whether the unlimited access
to American phone call records should be continued, or if it should only apply to suspected
terrorists. For the purpose of this study this presents an interesting case in counterterrorism
efforts, to limit the collection of call records on innocent U.S. citizens and target only those
suspected of potential terrorist’s activity into the NSA’s surveillance metadata dictionary.
Ben Bain (2013)’s article DHS Releases New Details on Einstein 3 Intrusion Prevention
Pilot, discusses cyber security measures to protect federal and civilian agencies. “Homeland
Security Department plans to automate the process of detecting cyber intrusions into civilian
agencies from possible cyber-attacks and to make this possible to prevent attacks before any
damage occur” called Einstein 3 (Bain 2010). Bain gives explanation into Einstein 3’s capability
to” improve cybersecurity analysis, situational awareness, and security response” (Bain 2010).
This raises concerns by the U.S. public in regards to the enhancement of cyber intrusions
capabilities. The concerns are that enhancing cybersecurity will give the federal government
greater access to intrude on U.S. citizens by capturing and maintaining internet records. The
benefit of enhancing cyber security is designed for identifying warnings and indications
involving possible terroristic plots, targets and cyber invasions against the United States. Bain’s
article has offered information concerning both benefits and concerns on domestic metadata
collection and surveillance for the protection of federal and civilian agencies and the U.S. public.

24
The article illustrates a fairer and more balanced assessment of domestic data collection and
surveillance.
Barton Gellman and Ashkan Soltani’s article, NSA Tracking Cellphone Locations
Worldwide, Snowden Documents Show is critical to the recent disclosures about NSA’s
intelligence gathering practices and to the understanding of perceptions and concerns of the U.S.
public. This article explains that the NSA gathers billions of phone records a day from different
locations worldwide including the capabilities to track all movements of persons traveling
worldwide and mapping their locations using GPS software installed in cell devises. Gellman
and Sultana article recognizes the concerns that the NSA purpose in domestic data collection and
surveillance to deter terrorism or simply eavesdrop on suspected American terrorists, innocent
citizens or both. “The records feed a vast database that stores information about the locations of
at least hundreds of millions of devices, according to the officials and the documents, which
were provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden” (Gellman and Sultana 2013).
NSA Tracking Cellphone Locations Worldwide, suggests that the capabilities to track all
movements of persons including mapping their locations using GPS software provides the
intelligence community a substantial surveillance tool to eavesdrop and obtained information on
the private lives of U.S. citizens. This article expands upon the “scope and potential impact on
privacy, the efforts to collect and analyze location data may be unsurpassed among the NSA
surveillance programs that have been disclosed since June 2013, surveillance analysts can find
cellphones anywhere in the world retrace their movements and expose hidden relationships
among the people using them” (Gellman and Sultana 2013). This article is one of the key pieces
of literature for the study of the NSA’s domestic bulk data collection and surveillance program
and the concerns by the U.S. public.

25
Glenn Greenwald (2013) former columnist with The Guardian, Interview Transcript
FULL TEXT: Read the Guardian's Entire Interview with the Man Who Leaked PRISM.
Interviewed former CIA contractor, Edward Snowden, in his interview, Snowden disclosed that
all U.S. communications have been digitally cloned by government agencies, in apparent
violation of unreasonable search and seizure law. This cloning of data stores in bulk personal
information about U.S. Citizens not suspected of or currently under investigation by either the
NSA or the FBI. Snowden discloses that, “The storage capability of these systems increases
every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't
have to have done anything wrong… And then they can use this system to go back in time and
scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with.
And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in
the context of a wrongdoer” (Greenwald 2013). This interview further illustrates how long the
NSA stores the metadata for future examination on potential terrorists and innocent Americans.
Blake Norvell (2009) article, The Constitution and the NSA Warrantless Wiretapping
Program: A Fourth Amendment Violation, addresses whether the NSA warrantless wiretapping
program violates the U.S. Constitution and specifically the Fourth Amendment of the United
States. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Blake
2009). After the 9/11 terrorist attack the Bush administration approved the National Security
Agency to employ the warrantless wiretapping.

26
Blake argues that the government’s empowerment to intrude on U.S. citizens by
capturing private phone conversations, e-mails, instant messaging, as well as internet records
violates of right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Blake
discusses in the article that the “government has not revealed the precise details of the NSA
warrantless wiretapping program and how the NSA program likely functions in order to assess
the constitutionality of the program is constitutional and would be upheld by the courts” (Blake
2009). Blake presents the understanding biases of constitutional law opposing the NSA’s
warrantless wiretapping program. This literature is a key piece of study that debates the NSA’s
unlimited authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens under the appearance of protecting
national security.
Spence Ackerman and Dan Roberts (2014) article, US Government Privacy Board Says
NSA Bulk Collection Of Phone Data Is Illegal discusses the U.S. government’s privacy board
and debates rather the NSA’s bulk data and surveillance program is useful to the United States
justification to counter terrorism and that there are no evidence that the program has made any
difference to discover any terrorist plots against the United States and the mass surveillance
program infringes on American civil liberties and violates section 215 of Patriot Act and needs to
be shut down.
Ackerman and Roberts discusses that “we are aware of no instance in which the program
directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a
terrorist attack” (Ackerman and Roberts 2014). The article further discusses President Obama’s
acceptance that domestic bulk data and surveillance collection was necessary to detect potential
terrorist influences inside the United States. “Obama accepted the intelligence community’s
highly contested rationale that bulk phone records collection was necessary in order for the

27
government to detect domestic connections to terrorism” (Ackerman and Roberts 2014). This
article suggests the NSA’s metadata collection surveillance program has not discovered any
terrorist plots that can do harm inside the United States territory and needs to be shut down.
Eli Lake (2014) is a senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast, his recent
article, Spy Chief: We Should’ve Told You We Track Your Calls. Lake discusses that the U.S.
government should have acknowledged the bulk data collection was kept secret far too long.
“The American public and most members of Congress were kept in the dark for years about a
secret U.S. program to collect and store such records of American citizens on a massive scale.
The government’s legal interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act that granted the authority
for this dragnet collection was itself a state secret. Even the head of the U.S. intelligence
community now believes that its collection and storage of millions of call records was kept too
secret for too long.” (Lake 2014). Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor broke the
silence on the NSA’s bulk data collection and surveillance program.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admits that if the U.S. citizen’s and
legislative body were aware of the metadata collection and surveillance program that the NSA
would not have been any pushback. “In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper stated “the problems facing the U.S. intelligence community
over its collection of phone records could have been avoided”. “I probably shouldn’t say this, but
I will. Had we been transparent about this from the outset right after 9/11—which is the genesis
of the 215 programs—and said both to the American people and to their elected representatives,
we need to cover this gap, we need to make sure this never happens to us again, so here is what
we are going to set up, here is how it’s going to work, and why we have to do it, and here are the
safeguards… We wouldn’t have had the problem we had” (Lake 2014). James Clapper still

28
supports bulk metadata collection on U.S. citizens. “The storage of the phone records allows
NSA analysts to connect phone numbers of suspected terrorists overseas to a possible network
inside the United States. Other U.S. intelligence officials say its real value is that it saves work
for the FBI and the NSA in tracking down potential leads by ruling out suspicious numbers
quickly” (Lake 2014). Spy Chief: We Should’ve Told You We Track Your Calls, advocates the
intelligence community should have been truthful from the beginning that the NSA was
collecting bulk data and surveillance on Americans and therefore this program should have been
made aware to the public, however advocates bulk metadata collection on U.S. citizens.
Douglas Ernst (2014) is a correspondent for the Washington Times, his article Richard
Clarke: Potential for American ‘police state’ created by NSA examines concerns of the NSA’s
bulk data collection and the surveillance program has the potential to create economic and social
controls on the United States. Richard A. Clarke who was the cybersecurity advisor under
President George W. Bush has concerns that the NSA with its vast surveillance programs has the
potential to create an authoritarian state in the United States. “In terms of collecting intelligence,
they are very good far better than you could imagine, but they (NSA) have created, with the
growth of technologies, the potential for a police state” (Ernst 2014). “A 2013 report on data
collection by government agencies that Richard Clarke went on to note that much of the blame
can be placed at the feet of policymakers who have failed to ask tough questions about what the
NSA is doing and to lay out very specific ground rules” (Ernst 2014). Ernst’s article explains that
the NSA has highly trained, intelligent, and skilled Americans who care about their country and
are willing to protect the United States against any potential terrorist attacks. However the
concerns are that if there is any future attacks on the United States much like that of 9/11 then
this could catapult the United States into a totalitarian society.

29
Other concerns relating to this article is the powers that give both present and future
presidents the ability to enact the policy of more control of U.S. citizens in the name of national
security. “The NSA, despite all the hoopla, has been a force of good. It could, with another
president or after another 9/11, be a force not for good, Clarke said. “Once you give up your
rights, you can never get them back. Once you turn on that police state, you can never turn it off”
(Ernst 2013). Clarke: Potential for American ‘police state’ created by NSA is a good example of
the need for balance and protection under constitutional law between surveillance and civil
liberties and to ensure our representatives are charged to enforce the law and to hold our
representatives accountable under the constitution if they fail.
The nature of war and warfare has been altered from defending U.S. security interests
against other nation states to now defending against diverse and fluid terrorist groups. In JD
Supra’s article Presidential Review Group Report on NSA Spying: Liberty and Security in a
Changing World. This report discusses the recommendations surrounding the NSA systematic
bulk collection of metadata and surveillance on all U.S. Citizens. “The Report by the Presidents
Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies” (Review Committee Report
2013) consisting of five intelligence and legal experts appointed by President Obama has
articulated this shift in paradigms for U.S. policy makers. The Committee states, “By their very
nature, terrorist attacks tend to involve covert, decentralized actors who participate in plots that
may not be easy to identify or disrupt. Surveillance can protect, and has protected, against such
plots. But protection of national security includes a series of additional goals, prominently
including counterintelligence and counter-proliferation” (Review Committee Report 2013, 43).
Given the demands of today’s political and technological climate, surveillance at home and

30
abroad is clearly a necessary and indispensable means of protecting the lives of all Americans
and our allies.
Dr. Jennifer Sims (2007) serves as professor and the director of intelligence studies at
Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Her article Intelligence
to Counter Terror address the modern intelligence requirements for countering terrorism and
creating a balance both national security and individual rights. Sims acknowledges that
countering terrorism and creating a balance both national security and individual rights “begins
by considering the nature of the terrorists we face and the requirements for good intelligence
operations against them” (Sims 2007). Her article discuses turning points in American
surveillance history, with a focus on the recent past and present that is identified by important
changes. These changes challenge the idea of giving up American’s civil liberties for the
purposes of security. “Historical examples illustrate those lessons that can be learned from the
defeat of similar threats in the past, including the recurring ways in which challenges to civil
liberties arise as democracies optimize intelligence in the name of security” (Sims 2007). Sims
recognizes a challenge to modern technologies that poses a threat to democracy questioning
rights to privacy in the information age and there needs to be a balance between surveillance and
civil liberties.
Report and Recommendations of The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and
Communications (2013), Technologies Liberty and Security in a Changing World, examines
President Obama’s Review Committee on recommendations to safeguard the United States
national security and to improve our international foreign policy. The Obama Administration’s
philosophy in weighing the general good over the individual right is no better than Bush’s
Administration. However, President Obama’s Review Committee reminded us that, “the

31
September 11 attacks were a vivid demonstration of the need for detailed information about the
activities of potential terrorists” (Committee Review Report 2013, 71). The 9/11 attacks taught
us that “the terrorist enemy in the 21st century is not a nation state against which the United
States and its allies can retaliate with the same effectiveness as the presupposed during the cold
war era” (Committee Review Report 2013, 71).
The shift in U.S. policy toward the collection of personal information now looks to the
fact that terrorists can inflict far greater than anything that their predecessors could have
imagined. “We are no longer dealing with threats from firearms and conventional explosives, but
the possibility of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices and biological and
chemical agents. The damage that such attacks could inflict on the nation, measured in terms of
loss of life, economic and social disruption, and the consequent sacrifice of civil liberties, is
extraordinary. The events of September 11 brought this home with crystal clarity” (Committee
Review Report 2013, 72). Terrorists “operate within a global communications network that
enables them both to hide their existence from outsiders and to communicate with one another
across continents at the speed of light. Effective safeguards against terrorist attacks require the
technological capacity to ferret out such communications in an international communications
grid” (Committee Review Report 2013, 72).
John R Brinkerhoff ‘s(2001) article, Relationship of Warning and Response to Homeland
Security discusses warning and response, regardless of the warning, response is when an action
has taken place or an impending danger. As Americans there seems to be a continuous pattern of
complacency. We are never prepared for any disastrous event, but we seem to shine after any
sort of disastrous events. Brinkerhoff states, “It is an American tradition to be unprepared for
major events” (Brinkerhoff 2001, 2). Maybe the excuse is the U.S. is more isolated than the rest

32
of the world, therefore it is more difficult in attacking this country so we become complacent.
Maybe we are so consumed with our busy lives of work and play that we think the boogieman
will not hurt us so we do not take warnings seriously. “One big reason why authorities are slow
to act on warning is that they know they will face ferocious criticism from the press, the media,
and natural-born opponents if they act and then nothing happens” (Brinkerhoff 2001, 4).
Therefore the “primary cause of not doing anything about warning is fear of criticism for
crying wolf. Elected officials, civil servants, military commanders, and company presidents find
it easier to do nothing rather than risk criticism for acting rashly and wasting time and money”
(Brinkerhoff 2001, 4). Americans jeopardize warning and response in fear of criticism. This is
worth noting, Brinkerhoff also states that there are “three reasons for failure are fear of erring,
poor planning, and complacency” (Brinkerhoff 2001, 4). The U.S. can avoid or mitigate the
effects of surprise attacks like those of 9/11on the homeland by considering the relationship
between warning and response is to take the steps to ensure the warning is clear and specific to
ensure the decision-makers can have the flexibility to measure the potential warning and to
implement a well-planned response.
Officials involved with Homeland Security must determine the legitimacy of the
warnings, determine a timeline of response, and task the decision makers to ensure they will do
the right thing. Improving both intelligence and preparation will allow warning and response to
work together to provide enhanced security for the United States because our security depends
on the warnings and what proper responses to take. Relationship of Warning and Response to
Homeland Security illustrates the importance of bulk data collection surveillance by the NSA to
divert any potential terrorist aggression on the United States. Indication and warnings to prevent

33
future terrorist attacks, this is the core of this research study on the benefits of the NSA’s bulk
metadata and surveillance.
The information presented in this review summarizes that the NSA has been gathering
communications information programs since the Cold War. Since the attack on 9/11 the NSA has
been gathering communications information but on a broader scale, indiscriminately capturing
private conversations, e-mail communications, and internet downloads of people innocent of any
national or international crimes. This concerns perceptions of U.S. citizens on data collection and
surveillance and questions American civil liberties. However capturing conversations of
terrorists that can in fact do harm to the United States and its allies.
After 9/11 there were significant impacts that have changed Americans lives forever.
Congress passing legislation for the Patriot Act in 2001 giving the intelligence community, the
necessary resources needed to target and destroy terrorist networks operating inside and outside
the United States. With the Patriot Act, President Bush had promised the American people that
the federal government, within the law would protect, against another terrorist attack. This
created change with the NSA’s surveillance program; it was designed to enhance surveillance
capabilities and had essentially unlimited authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens under
the guise of protecting national security. The most significant change was air transportation.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) implementing stringent guidelines on
passengers and baggage screening. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, created a number of
existing and new governmental agencies notable are; Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Emergency Management Administration
(FEMA), National Guard and the Secret Service, combining these services to interoperability

34
support between all agencies. With the NSA’s unlimited authority to conduct surveillance on
U.S. citizens, 2013 year of inquiry for the National Security Agency this scrutiny beginning with
leaks of classified information from NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked classified
material to journalists sparking how far reaching the NSA surveillance capabilities have evolved.
These surveillance capabilities into private data collection by the government can be seen as a
reflection of uneasiness within the U.S. public.
This uneasiness also ignited the speculation the NSA was also spying on representatives
of Congress. Conversations between NSA Chief Gen. Keith Alexander and Sen. Bernie Sanders
of Vermont that the government is not spying on representatives of Congress, but did not rule out
representatives and senators have not had their telephone metadata caught up in a broad
government sweeps. With the NSA’s enhanced surveillance program collecting bulk phone
records began with the Bush administration in 2001aurthorzing to begin collecting phone records
based on the Patriot Act in 2001 and to date President Obama so far has supported this program.
The Obama administration revealed that the surveillance program that collects bulk phone
records is lawful, but also recognizes concerns about intrusion on the U.S. public’s privacy while
collecting only on suspect terrorists.
The NSA’s enhanced surveillance program has also increased the capabilities to detect
cyber intrusions on federal and civilian agencies. The enhanced cyber surveillance program is
called Einstein 3, this system is designed improve cybersecurity. There concerns are that
enhancing cybersecurity will give the federal government greater access to intrude on U.S.
citizens by capturing and maintaining Internet records. But there are benefits concerning improve
cybersecurity, Einstein 3 enhances cyber security is designed for identifying warnings and
indications involving possible terroristic plots and cyber invasions against federal and civilian

35
agencies and the U.S. public. Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in recent disclosures
about NSA’s intelligence gathering practices to understand why perceptions and concerns by the
U.S. public. The NSA gathers billions of phone records a day from different locations worldwide
including the capabilities to track all movements of persons traveling worldwide and mapping
their locations using GPS software installed in cell devises, therefore widening the NSA
surveillance capabilities to eavesdrop and obtained information on the private lives of citizens.
There are questions whether the NSA warrantless wiretapping program violates the U.S.
Constitution and specifically the Fourth Amendment of the United States. After the 9/11 terrorist
attack the Bush administration approved the National Security Agency to employ the warrantless
wiretapping and the government’s empowerment to intrude on U.S. citizens by capturing private
phone conversations, e-mails, instant messaging, as well as internet records violates of right to
privacy. There has to be a balance between both national security and individual rights for
countering terrorism. Challenges to modern technologies poses a threat to democracy
questioning rights to privacy in the information age and there needs to be a balance between
surveillance and civil liberties. The benefits of the NSA bulk data collection and surveillance
program is used as an early warning and response detection system, and regardless of the
warning, response is when an action has taken place or an impending danger. Americans
jeopardize warning and response in fear of criticisms that the United States government spends
too much funding in the name of national security.
Throughout American history there seems to be a continuous pattern of complacency; we
are never prepared for any disastrous event, however, we seem to shine after the fact or in
response to a disastrous event. Maybe the excuse is the U.S. is more isolated than the rest of the
world, therefore it is more difficult in attacking this country so we become complacent or maybe

36
we are so consumed with our busy lives of work and play that we think the boogieman will not
hurt us so we do not take warnings seriously. The U.S. can avoid or mitigate the effects of
surprise attacks like those of 9/11on the homeland by considering the relationship between
warning and response; steps to ensure the warning is clear and specific to ensure the decision-
makers can have the flexibility to measure the potential warning and to implement a well-
planned response. Officials involved with Homeland Security must determine the legitimacy of
the warnings and determine the timeline of a response. Task the decision makers to ensure they
will do the right thing. Improving both intelligence and preparation will allow warning and
response to work together to provide enhanced security for the United States because our
security depends on the warnings and what proper responses to take. The importance and
benefits of bulk data collection surveillance by the NSA is to divert any potential terrorist
aggression on the United States.
With the abundance of literature on this specific research question regarding the benefits
and concerns and gathering practices about the NSA’s domestic surveillance and data collection
and the perception by Americans has raised controversies concerning counterterrorism efforts to
significantly boost the federal government’s capabilities to collect and analyze communications
information on a broad scale. This raises the debate of whether this is to widen surveillance
capabilities to expose and neutralize terrorist insurrection, or simply to extend the government’s
power to intrude on U.S. citizen’s civil liberties by which this literature incorporates. There are
gaps to this literature concerning a fair and balance augment detailing the NSA’s surveillance
practices is difficult. This is due to the overwhelming assumptions but journalists and certain
U.S. citizens that the United States is gravitating towards the NSA’s original intensions either to
deter terrorism, or simply to eavesdrop on American citizens.

37
The positions taken in the literature seem to take the extreme positions without nuance
and turn the debate into a black-and-white stalemate. They consider the facts related to the high
level and detail of surveillance a given datum and try to argue on either side. While a middle-
ground may or may not be achievable in the short-run, there is still room to understand and steer
the debate to more constructive goals for American society.
METHODOLOGY
This study explores whether the events before and after September 11, 2001, have caused
a fundamental realignment of our nation’s values from an overriding concern for individual
rights to a virtually unrestricted ability of government to intrude upon individual liberties in the
name of national security. More specifically, this research study will use a multi-method
approach to examine the question, “Has the modern threat to U.S. national security interests
evolved to justify the NSA’s domestic bulk data collection and surveillance program”? This
study will rely predominantly on qualitative data investigation drawn from a combination of
forms ranging from court records, government reports, scholarly peer reviewed articles sources,
websites from publicly available sources, main stream and alternative media outlets, newspapers,
video documentaries, journal articles and government publications.
The theme of this research study seeks to discover the balance between benefits in
security, concerns over intrusion of personal liberties, and freedoms and the controversies
surrounding the NSA’s determination in domestic bulk data collection, as well as surveillance on
U.S. citizens. This research will also determine if this practice is in violation of the U.S.
Constitution. The research hypothesis was “with the advent of new technologies allowing for
immediate mass dissemination of information, the public perceptions of the objective benefits is

38
to deter terrorism and the concerns is to extend the government’s power to intrude on U.S.
citizen’s civil liberties and the opportunity for political misuse”. This method attempts to offer an
investigative approach that is both fair and balanced to this research.
This research also includes sources defending the benefits of the NSA’s surveillance
program while other sources have concerns of the NSA’s encroachment on American civil
liberties. With the abundance of literature on this specific research question regarding the
benefits, concerns, and gathering practices of the NSA’s domestic surveillance and data
collection and the perception by Americans, has raised controversies concerning
counterterrorism efforts to significantly boost the federal government’s capabilities to collect and
analyze communications on a broad scale. Advocates debate whether this is to widen
surveillance capabilities to expose and neutralize terrorist insurrection, or simply to extend the
government’s power to intrude on U.S. citizen’s civil liberties by which this literature
incorporates. There are gaps to this literature concerning a fair and balanced argument detailing
the NSA’s surveillance practices is difficult. This is due to the overwhelming assumptions by
journalists and certain U.S. citizens that the United States is gravitating towards the NSA’s
original intensions either to deter terrorism, or simply to eavesdrop on American citizens.
The dependent variables for the work were after 9/11 revealed the nation’s weaknesses
and the United States government has stepped up its intelligence gathering efforts, both foreign
and domestic. The concern of the American public is that the NSA is eavesdropping and
infringing on their constitutional rights. The independent variable for the work includes the
challenges to which modern technologies pose a threat to democracy. This questions rights to
privacy in the information age and the need of a balance between surveillance and civil liberties.
The evidence from this study is used to examine the intelligence community’s use of detailed

39
activities that are vulnerable to civil liberties under the U.S. Constitution regarding the NSA’s
surveillance intrusive program.
While the perceptions will be documented, one limitation of this research approach is
related to its historical method which may exhibit availability bias. This limitation will be
addressed by examining at least one source from each of the two ends of the American political
spectrum, conservative and liberal, yielding two data points for each of the turning points under
consideration. The case study provides detailed information from both fronts’ mainstream and
alternation media to attempt to find validity between both sides of this theory. This case also
provides the idea that the U.S. public perceives the NSA’s eavesdropping program as an
infringement on their constitutional rights. The study will conclude with a summary of the final
analysis that will provide a more complete understanding of the NSA situation post 9/11 and the
attempts to justify the NSA’s domestic bulk data collection and surveillance on U.S. citizens.
Concluding comments resulting from this study will draw an overall conclusion to justify
the original intent on the NSA’s domestic bulk data collection and surveillance program. The
question becomes, is the NSA in place solely for national security and to deter terrorism, or to
eavesdrop on American citizens for the purpose of political misuse.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The competing values of the American constitutional democracy balance the need for
security of the whole against rights of the one. These competing values are manifested in the
introduction to the U.S. Constitution which states, “We the People of the United States, in Order
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves

40
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”
(U.S. Constitution 1787).
This statement, created by our founding fathers, sets forth the dual values upon which all
government policy must be based. That is, that our nation’s government is ordained and
established to both “provide for the common defense” and to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to
the citizens of these United States. These two values are described as protecting two diverse
security interests. First, is to secure our nation as a whole against the threat of attack by foreign
governments and terrorist groups. Second, is to secure the civil liberty interests and freedoms of
the individual citizen. It is the intersection of these two fundamental security interests that this
study examines.
Specifically, considered is whether the exigencies of our nation’s security interests in
today’s political and technological climate after September 11, 2011, has been permanently
realigned to make one interest incompatible with the other. The answer to this question will have
far reaching effects in advising and forming U.S. foreign intelligence gathering policies now and
in the future. Currently, the truest measure of such a shift in paradigms is whether the NSA’s
program of domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens will stand or fall. There are two perspectives
that are giving rise to this debate. As reflected in the literature above, some journalists, authors,
and pundits believe that the two securities are irreconcilable.
This group contends that in the modern era, with serious threats to the homeland and the
rise of modern communication technologies, the nation must choose between two values. On the
one hand, governmental policy makers have the duty to take the necessary steps to protect
national security by enabling public officials to counteract and to anticipate genuine threats,

41
while also ensuring that the people are secure “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” as
set forth by the Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment reads as
follows, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (U.S. Constitution 1787).
The nature of war and warfare transformed over the past decade from defending U.S.
security interests against other nation states to now defending against diverse and fluid terrorist
groups. The Report by the Presidents Review Group on Intelligence and Communication
Technologies (Review Committee Report 2013) has articulated this shift in paradigms for U.S.
policy makers, stating, “By their very nature, terrorist attacks tend to involve covert,
decentralized actors who participate in plots that may not be easy to identify or disrupt.
Surveillance can protect, and has protected, against such plots. But protection of national security
includes a series of additional goals, prominently including counterintelligence and counter-
proliferation” (Review Committee Report 2013, 43). Given the demands of today’s political and
technological climate, surveillance at home and abroad is clearly a necessary and indispensable
means of protecting the lives of all Americans and our allies.
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States the citizens of this
country have lived in the grip of fear and uncertainty about their personal safety. In response,
the United States Government has stepped up its intelligence gathering efforts, both foreign and
domestic. These expanded efforts have included adding new federal agencies dedicated to
protecting its security interests and widening the mandate of existing federal agencies.
Principally among these is the National Security Agency (NSA). Created on November 4,

42
1952 under the Truman administration, the NSA’s function was tempered by the perceived
threats of that day. These threats emanated from the fears brought forth by the Cold War and
gave rise to the two broad areas of responsibility originally assigned to the NSA. The first of
these was signals intelligence or “SIGINT,” which involves cryptanalysis or the “collection and
analysis of non-U.S. (foreign) communications.” (Glass 2010). The second was purely defensive
in nature and involves cryptography or the “protection of United States government
communications and Information Systems from penetration by foreign governments.” (Glass
2010). Notably, these areas of responsibility focused the efforts of the NSA outward and away
from spying on American citizens.
However, the hysteria of 9/11 gave rise to a new urgency to strengthen United States
counterterrorism efforts and significantly boost the federal government’s capabilities to collect
and analyze communication information. In response, Congress passed legislation giving the
NSA essentially unlimited authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens. Yet, the new
mandate exercised by the NSA has not gone without criticism. Recently, the pronouncements of
Edward Snowden, a former computer contractor for the NSA, have brought to the forefront of
the American consciousness the debate between the requirements of security for our nation
against the personal liberties and freedoms of the citizens.
The NSA’s main purpose in domestic bulk data collection and surveillance on its U.S.
citizens is to prevent terrorist attacks both within and outside our country’s borders. In its
declassified Transition 2001 Policy Statement, “the NSA asserts that the agency’s expanded
domestic surveillance mission is essential in protecting the U.S. critical information structure that
has been made more vulnerable to foreign intelligence efforts and operations” (Richelson 2001,
31). Its Policy Statement declares that this vulnerability extends not only to the traditional

43
classified national security networks, but also to the private sector infrastructure upon which the
new digital information age depends. The NSA justifies its domestic surveillance program by
citing the need to “keep up” with the rapid deployment of new private sector information
technology into global networks, which is expanding the volume, velocity, and variety of
information requiring the NSA to respond quickly and comprehensively.
Consequently, the NSA mission in the 21st century has changed significantly. According
to Richelson, in the past, the “NSA operated in a mostly analog world of point-to-point
communications carried along discrete, dedicated voice channels” (Richelson 2000). Most of
these communications were in the air and could be accessed using conventional means. Although
the volume of data was growing, it was manageable and could be processed and exploited easily.
“Now, communications are mostly digital, carry billions of bits of data, and contain voice data
and multimedia” (Richelson 2000). Today, there are fiber optics that data can travel through at
light speed, high-speed wire-line networks, and most importantly, an emerging wireless network
that includes wireless cellular devices and air computers. With the advent of advanced
telecommunication technologies, the NSA is required to respond rapidly to any potential
warnings and indications involving terrorist plots against the U.S. and its citizens. Therein lies
the root of the controversies surrounding the NSA’s purpose in domestic bulk data collection and
surveillance on its U.S. citizens. Since the Edward Snowden affair, there has been an endless
debate among politicians, mainstream media, alternative media and the public, the essence of
which examines the potential for the NSA’s domestic surveillance program violating the U.S.
Constitution. The debate weighs the benefit of protecting U.S. citizens against terrorist acts with
the potential loss of their civil liberties.

44
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NSA’S DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE POLICY
Before September 11, 2001
The birth of the NSA’s domestic surveillance program dates back to 1978, whereby the
Agency was authorized to collect data and wiretap within certain constitutional parameters.
These parameters were set out in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and reflected
a more robust commitment to Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches
and seizures without probable cause” (U.S. Constitution 1792). These protections included the
requirement that all surveillance conducted by the NSA and FBI be approved by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). “FISC, also called the FISA Court. Both FISA and FISC
were implemented in response to a report by the Church Committee, which as convened in
response to the overriding policy concerns of Congress to protect against the possibility of
abuses and unwarranted intrusions upon the privacy interests and civil liberties of U.S. Citizens.
However, even with the concern for the preservation of American rights, indiscriminate bulk
data collection was justified based upon a legal fiction that it was legally permissible under the
Fourth Amendment since no data collected would be reviewed, until it was searched, and then
there was no Fourth Amendment violation” (Savage 2013). However, critics of the NSA’s
domestic surveillance data collection efforts argue that the initial seizure of the data is also
illegal under the U.S. Constitution.
After September 11, 2001
Shortly after the September 11, 2001, there was a marked and radical change in U.S.
policy and attitudes about making national security the priority over individual rights. The
United States Government has stepped up its intelligence gathering efforts both foreign and

45
domestic. President George W. Bush had vowed to the American people that the federal
government within the law would protect against further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. On
October 6, 2001, President Bush authorized the NSA to conduct a variety of surveillance
activities, including the warrantless surveillance of telephone and internet communications of
persons within the United States. These expanded efforts have included adding new federal
agencies dedicated to protecting its security interests and widening the mandate of existing
federal agencies, principally among these expanded efforts is the NSA “The NSA asserts that the
agency’s expanded domestic surveillance mission is essential in protecting the U.S. critical
information structure that has been made more vulnerable to foreign intelligence efforts and
operations” (Richelson 2000).
The Bush administration initiatives provided funding to build new facilities around the
country and stationing more officers overseas to extend the NSA’s reach to combat terrorism.
After President Bush’s vow to the American people that the federal government would protect its
citizens against future terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed. This act
created a number of existing and new governmental agencies, including: Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), National Guard and the Secret Service, combining these services
to interoperability support between all agencies. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 changed
American lives forever. There were five significant impacts on U.S. citizens a decade after 9/11,
that list was “Travel, The Department of Homeland Security, Anti-Islam Sentiment, Our
Language and The World Trade Center” (Hagler 2012).
The most significant change was air transportation. Hagler states that the “Transportation
Security Administration implemented procedures that included stricter guidelines on passenger

46
and luggage screening. Only ticketed passengers could go through security. Body scanners and
new procedures were introduced to search for weapons and other contraband” (Hagler, 2012).
Hagler provides insight into issues regarding hate crimes towards law abiding Muslim
communities, radical profiling, and American television that capitalized new opinions
characterizing Muslims as evil. Hagler examines the words and phrases used after 9/11. “The
Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation, drone attacks, al Qaeda, sleeper cells, waterboarding, ground
zero and the Taliban. Prior to 9/11 words and phrases used were War on Poverty, and the War on
Drugs” (Hagler, 2012). 2013 was a year of inquiry for the National Security Agency; this
scrutiny began with leaks of classified information from NSA computer contractor Edward
Snowden, who leaked classified material to journalists. Those leaks illustrated how far reaching
the NSA surveillance capabilities have evolved since United States government had stepped up
its intelligence gathering.
These enhanced surveillance capabilities by the NSA gave way into private data
collection and surveillance by the government can be seen as a reflection of uneasiness within
the U.S. public. Questions by the U.S. public on how effective enhanced surveillance capabilities
by the NSA were in preventing terrorists attacks emphasizes the limitations of surveillance
examples chronicled “Taliban activates in Afghanistan but failed to stop the attack on the Hotel
Continental in Kabul” (Hodge, Channon and Makhoul 2013). Also collecting information on
“Syria’s chemical arsenal but the information gathered could not be used to prevent an attack on
Damascus” (Hodge, Channon and Makhoul 2013) and the Boston bombing. The debate weighs
the benefit of protecting U.S. Citizens against terrorist acts tailored to justify its intrusion onto
the civil liberties of the citizenry, with the potential loss of civil liberties.

47
Understanding how the NSA is collecting bulk data and surveillance on U.S. citizens,
“Now that almost all of us are on line, connected or digital in some way spies are no longer just
watching just one or two bad guys instead the NSA is collecting a massive amount of
information form the things we do on the phones and over the internet” (Ball 2013). “There are
two main ways they get hold of this information; one way is to work with companies that run
these systems and tap the cables that are vital in moving this information all around” (Ball 2013).
Information that is gathered by the NSA can sort out the massive amount of bulk data and can be
stored in data bases.
For example, the new NSA data storage facility located in Bluffdale, Utah can store a
vast amount of data gathered for collection and surveillance analysis. Other methods that use
technology to collect data include companies like Facebook, Google, and Yahoo, which are used
to retrieve e-mails, texts, facial recognition, and any additional information from the core of
corporate services. This raises the question of what the NSA is using this vast amount of
information for. “The NSA throws most of the content away they collect they keep on their
systems for about three days. Then discard everything that is not form one of their targets” (Ball
2013).
However, the collection of metadata from Americans is another matter altogether. The
duration of metadata collected by the NSA “the agency keeps almost all the metadata they see
for one year” (Ball 2013), is significantly longer than data. Collecting metadata is like a puzzle,
the pieces are made of, in this case, people with a vast network of profiles connected to other
profiles of people who communicate with each other. With this metadata the NSA knows exactly
where they are located if needed. The concerns about how the NSA is collecting bulk metadata

48
and surveillance on U.S. citizens, “The governments of America and the UK argue that these
surveillance programs help keep us safe from terrorism” (Ball 2013).
With the recent Snowden documents, disclosures about NSA’s intelligence gathering
practices explain why the concerns of the U.S. public are so controversial. The NSA gathers
billions of phone records a day from different locations worldwide and has the capability to track
all movements of persons traveling worldwide by mapping their locations using GPS software
installed in cell devices. The NSA’s purpose in domestic data collection and surveillance is to
deter terrorism or simply eavesdrop on suspected American terrorists, innocent citizens, or both.
“The records feed a vast database that stores information about the locations of at least hundreds
of millions of devices, according to the officials and the documents, which were provided by
former NSA contractor Edward Snowden” (Gellman and Sultana 2013).
These metadata collection tracks expand upon the “scope and potential impact on
privacy, [and since] the efforts to collect and analyze location data may be unsurpassed among
the NSA surveillance programs that have been disclosed since June 2013, surveillance analysts
can find cellphones anywhere in the world retrace their movements and expose hidden
relationships among the people using them” (Gellman and Sultana 2013). There are two specific
surveillance programs the NSA is leading. One is known as “Bulk Collection of Telephone
Metadata, which collects, stores, and analyzes the records of a significant portion of the phone
calls made and received in the United States (from here on ‘phone surveillance’). The other,
known as PRISM, collects private electronic communications from a number of major online
providers such as Google and Facebook and is focused on non-Americans” (Etzioni 2014).
Talking about these two programs, United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s claimed that
NSA leaker Edward Snowden has caused serious damage to U.S. national security, that “the

49
information leaked [by Snowden] about the massive surveillance program run by the National
Security Agency (NSA) is “extremely damaging” to U.S. national security without explaining
how it is actually damaging” (Ruppert 2013).
Information regarding the precise scope of the NSA’s domestic surveillance program has
fluctuated over the years until the passage of metadata that was recently confirmed by Edward
Snowden, a former NSA Contractor, in an interview with the Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian
newspaper. In his interview, Snowden disclosed that all U.S. communications have been digitally
cloned by government agencies, in apparent violation of the unreasonable search and seizure
law. This cloning of data stores bulk personal information about U.S. citizens not suspected of or
currently under investigation by either the NSA or the FBI. Snowden discloses, “The storage
capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's
getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to
eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call. And then they can use this
system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've
ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an
innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer” (Greenwald 2013).
Attorney General Holder restated the claim that the NSA’s bulk data collection and
surveillance program did not target any phone record or conversations of a particular American
citizen. “That PRISM was aimed only at “facilitating the acquisition of foreign intelligence
information on targets outside the United States. The program is only used if it is “reasonably
believed” that the “foreign target” of the surveillance is outside of the U.S. and suspected of
being somehow involved in terrorism, cybercrime or nuclear proliferation” (Ruppert 2013). This
illustrates an alternative view point that the importance of national security concerns are critical,

50
and that individual rights are inflexible. In order to enhance national security, the need of balance
between security and infringement on privacy, ensure there are no violations within the
Constitution and accountability of both programs.
THE CONTROVERSY OF THE NSA’s DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
The controversy with the NSA’s justification using bulk data collection and surveillance
is if a citizen is wrongly accused of any potential terrorist acts, there were no concrete answers
adding to this discussion. U.S. citizens just have to accept that the internet is a different place ran
by corporations and governments who can monitor everyone’s activity and prosecute those who
are suspected of terrorist acts or who are in fact planning terrorist acts. An alternative view on
the NSA’s collection and surveillance protocols solidifies the bulk data collection and
surveillance program pretense examination of how many terrorists did the NSA catch today or
how many innocent citizens did the NSA violate their privacy today and the need for balance
between actual act of terror and invasion of individual privacy.
After the declaration by President Bush, the United States government has stepped up its
intelligence gathering efforts, both foreign and domestic. The NSA’s warrantless wiretapping
program was classified as part of the intelligence gathering efforts for both foreign and domestic
and was tailored to justify its intrusion onto the civil liberties of the citizenry. This intrusion
presents an unjustifiable and overly expansive program that violates of the 4th Amendment of
the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be

51
seized” (Blake 2009). After the 9/11 terrorist attack the Bush administration approved the
National Security Agency to employ the warrantless wiretapping. This gave the federal
government empowerment to intrude on U.S. citizens by capturing private phone conversations,
e-mails, instant messaging, as well as Internet records violates of right to privacy under the
Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The “government has not revealed the precise
details of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and how the NSA program likely functions
in order to assess the constitutionality of the program is constitutional and would be upheld by
the courts” (Blake 2009). This action presents the understanding biases of constitutional law
opposing the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program and disputes the NSA’s unlimited
authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens under the appearance of protecting national
security therefore creating uneasiness within the U.S. public.
This uneasiness also ignited the speculation that the NSA was spying on representatives
of Congress. Conversations between NSA Chief General Keith Alexander and Senator Bernie
Sanders of Vermont claimed that the government is not spying on representatives of Congress,
but did not rule out the idea that representatives and senators have not had their telephone
metadata caught up in a broad government sweeps. The NSA cannot guarantee that members of
both political parties and world leaders have not had been targeted in any data surveillance.
Silverman points out that “telephone metadata program incorporates extraordinary controls to
protect Americans' privacy interests” (Silverman 2014). Senator Bernie is advocating that there
is a need to protect the United States from another terrorist attack while protecting the
constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Only under certain conditions the NSA will access
telephone metadata on any suspected Americans they feel that are suspected as being involved
with terrorist groups. Finding the balance between intrusions is an evolving public debate and

52
perceptions of NSA’s activities and their effect on the political debate for potential misuse on a
broader scale.
The great debate is to determine rather the NSA bulk data and surveillance program is
illegal and should end, the “National Security Agency’s program to collect bulk phone call
records has provided only “minimal” benefits in counterterrorism efforts, is illegal and should be
shut down” (Savage 2014). The NSA enhanced surveillance program collecting bulk phone
records began with the Bush administration in 2001aurthorzing to begin collecting phone records
based on the Patriot Act in 2002. To date President Obama so far has supported this program,
“bulk collection program as useful and lawful while at the same time acknowledging concerns
about privacy and potential abuse” (Savage 2014). There were recommendations by President
Obama to restrict and limit analysts to access telephone metadata on Americans only if the
analysts have evidence that Americans are suspected as being involved with terrorist groups.
There is continuing debate rather the program to collect bulk phone call records on
Americans has successfully stopped any present terrorist threats or terrorists attacks on the
United States. The continuing argument questions the NSA’s ability to collect phone call records
on all Americans or to simply collect only on suspect terrorists or to limit the collection of call
records on innocent U.S. citizens and target only those suspected of potential terrorist’s activity
into the NSA’s surveillance metadata dictionary. “The U.S. government’s privacy board debates
rather the NSA’s bulk metadata and surveillance program is useful to the United States
justification to counter terrorism and that there are no evidence that the program has made any
difference to discover any terrorist plots against the United States. This also advocates the mass
surveillance program infringes on American civil liberties and violates the Patriot Act, section
215 that gives the NSA any perceptible suspicion that is significant to any terrorism enquiry.

53
This is considered the main offender in the collection of data by the NSA in its domestic
surveillance program is Section 215 of the U.S.A. Patriot Act”. (USA Patriot Act of 2001. Pub.
L. 215).
The NSA’s surveillance program collecting domestic metadata has not discovered any
terrorist plots that can do harm inside the United States. Therefore needs to be shut down “we are
aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously
unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack” (Ackerman and Roberts 2014).
However President Obama’s acceptance that domestic bulk data and surveillance collection was
necessary to detect potential terrorist influences inside the United States, “Obama accepted the
intelligence community’s highly contested rationale that bulk phone records collection was
necessary in order for the government to detect domestic connections to terrorism” (Ackerman
and Roberts 2014).
The major concern involving the NSA’s bulk data collection and the surveillance
program has the potential to create economic and social controls in the United States. Richard A.
Clarke who was the cybersecurity advisor under President George W. Bush has concerns that the
NSA, with its vast surveillance programs has the potential to create an authoritarian government
in the United States. “In terms of collecting intelligence, they are very good far better than you
could imagine, but they (NSA) have created, with the growth of technologies, the potential for a
police state” (Ernst 2014). “A 2013 report on data collection by government agencies that
Richard Clarke was involved in, went on to note that much of the blame can be placed at the feet
of policymakers who have failed to ask tough questions about what the NSA is doing and to lay
out very specific ground rules” (Ernst 2014).

54
“The NSA has highly trained, intelligent, and skilled Americans who care about their
country and are willing to protect the United States against any potential terrorist attacks.
However the concerns include that if there are any future attacks on the United States much like
that of 9/11, this could catapult the United States into a police state. Other concerns are the
powers that give both present and future presidents to enact the policy of more control of U.S.
citizens in the name of national security. The NSA, despite all the hoopla, has been a force of
good. It could, with another president or after another 9/11, be a force not for good, Clarke said.
“Once you give up your rights, you can never get them back. Once you turn on that police state,
you can never turn it off” (Ernst 2013).
The critical importance is to ensure there are balances and protections under
constitutional law between surveillance and civil liberties and to ensure our representatives are
charged to enforce the law and to hold our them accountable under the constitution if they fail.
The modern intelligence requirements for countering terrorism and creating a balance both
national security and individual rights, and that countering terrorism and creating a balance both
national security and individual rights “begins by considering the nature of the terrorists we face
and the requirements for good intelligence operations against them” (Sims 2007).
Turning points in history of U.S. surveillance with a focus on the recent past and present
identified by important changes in surveillance that challenges civil liberties for the purposes of
security. “Historical examples illustrate those lessons that can be learned from the defeat of
similar threats in the past, including the recurring ways in which challenges to civil liberties arise
as democracies optimize intelligence in the name of security” (Sims 2007). There are challenges
to modern technologies that pose a threat to democracy questioning rights to privacy in the
information age and there needs to be a balance between surveillance and civil liberties.

Master Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Master Thesis

Similar to Master Thesis (18)

Master Thesis