Daily Times

“When I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more important than any that I make: number one, to keep the American people safe and, number two, to uphold the Constitution…That includes what I consider to be a constitutional right to privacy” — President Barack Obama.

In light of the recent leaks that the NSA (National Security Agency) has been engaged in the secret surveillance of phone records, the extent to which the notions of privacy with respect to the United States Constitution have been upheld is debatable.

In his fifth year in office, President Obama has been well accustomed to attacks on his policies from the right. Issues such as Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS, are just some of the policies that have even earned the president comments such as ‘impeach him’ from Republicans and conservative activists. However, apart from the stagnant situation concerning the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, very rarely is the president so heavily criticised from the left.

In a strange and unlikely turn of events, that has all changed in the last few days; liberals are after Obama and some conservatives have given their support. With regard to the NSA’s secret surveillance of phone records, it was discovered that ‘Big Data’ includes the obtaining and storing secretly of information from email and social media giving insight into people’s habits, preferences and friendships. The government’s justification in doing so: protection and prevention against future terrorist attacks.

As President and Commander-in-Chief, in charge of preventing the next terrorist attack, Obama has a responsibility to justify this spying to the American people. In doing so, the government’s take on the situation is that the NSA has “only” engaged in the surveillance of phone records of one mobile phone company, Verizon’s business clients. There is no doubt that as much as the general public would like to believe in the government’s so-called assurances, how can anyone know for sure what, when, who, where and why people are being spied on. According to the former US Vice President Al Gore, this electronic spying is “obscenely outrageous”. The American Civil Liberties Union calls it “beyond Orwellian”.

Whether these recent events are scandalous, downright unethical or simply an extensive overreach by the government are a matter of personal opinion. However, what is clear is that in the name of protection against terrorism, government agencies, in recent times, have been conducting their ‘investigations’ by clearly unorthodox and questionable methods, from the investigations of the Boston marathon bombings to the Florida shooting by the FBI of an unarmed Russian citizen, just to cite a couple of examples. Now with the addition of the NSA’s secret surveillance, it is entirely fair and logical to ask where exactly all this is headed. To what extent will the government agencies go in the name of protection against terrorism and how does this relate to and respect the principles of the Constitution?

Drone strikes, wire taps, Guantanamo…where is the line drawn? Frighteningly, many even from the left are reminded of the Bush administration. The usually liberal The New York Times has recently published an editorial stating that “the administration has now lost credibility on the issue.”

As can be expected, some analysts are not as concerned that an invasion of privacy is occurring and suggest that a broad surveillance, which is warranted by real threats, appropriately limited and supervised by government, is legitimate.

There are two significant problems with this. Firstly, it is a largely generalised and vague picture of what constitutes ‘broad surveillance’ and supervision by government. Up to this point, as far as recent government law enforcement agencies’ practices are concerned, there certainly seemed to be a vacuum in supervision of how investigations are being carried out. Furthermore, how much the government actually knew about the NSA’s doings is also not clear, at least to the general public, those who are most concerned and affected by such practices.

Secondly, what about the future? Even if the notion that ‘Big Brother is watching you’ is put on the backburner for the time being, what are the assurances that this is not going to be standard practice in the name of fighting terrorism in the future? It clearly seems that nonchalantly brushing this off as a simple case of broad surveillance is ignoring some very significant issues, which could potentially be of concern to the very concepts of the fundamentals of what constitutes civil liberties.

The looming question that therefore remains is: how much liberty are people willing to give up for protection by the state and where are the lines drawn? In everyday life, one really has no choice but to carry on with daily activities free from paranoid concerns about government spying. However, in doing so, it is a given that even on a subconscious level, we must realise that little by little, civil liberties are bound to be infringed upon. It is simply a question of knowing how much we are willing to accept and more importantly, how much we are willing to ignore.

The writer is an English and French professor and columnist residing in the USA and France. She can be reached at scballand@gmail.com