Choosing Between Security and Freedom: Obama's Straight and Narrow Path

The collection of web users’ private data by the National Security Agency has put those who favor these measures in the name of national security at odds with those who doubt their actual effectiveness.

It is often said that the French prefer equality to freedom. Since Sept. 11, 2001, have Americans preferred security to freedom? For several years, the NSA has been collecting information through American companies operating on the Internet, such as Google. American citizens, as well as those in the rest of the world, have been spied upon without their knowledge for a very long time. Close to two weeks after Edward J. Snowden, a former NSA agent, revealed PRISM and the operation of such programs to the world, this story is still dominating debates in the U.S. The criticism of the cyber-industrial complex has now overtaken that of the military-industrial complex.

For those who are in favor of monitoring, including New York Times editorialist Thomas Friedman, there is no choice. The existence of these spy programs is vital not only for the security of the U.S., but to the survival of American democracy. “Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat. I worry about that even more, not because I don’t care about civil liberties, but because what I cherish most about America is our open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open society as we know it.” For many Americans, it is simply a question of common sense. Above all, they criticize those panicking over freedom when that isn’t even the most obvious hypocritical element in the debate. There are those who see the denunciation of the American “Big Brother” as a convenient distraction to make others forget about their own human rights violations, Moscow in particular (Beijing remained deliberately silent). This is not the time to express hints of anti-Americanism as many EU countries, even Brussels, have done.

Conversely, over the past few days, it seems that an increasing number of Americans are expressing their skepticism regarding these programs. They’re doing so less in the name of grand principles than for the sake of efficiency. General Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, has confirmed that as many as a dozen terrorist attacks have been prevented thanks to PRISM, but American critics are nonetheless wary. As too much light can blind those coming out of darkness, too much information can confuse those who collect it. Inundated with data, will the U.S. intelligence community be able to recognize and select good information and, above all, relay it to the proper agencies in time? In other words, is the remedy not worse than the disease? American skeptics don’t judge these security programs by a measure of principle, but in terms of their effectiveness. If they aren’t as efficient as their creators claim, then the risks of security abuses should be subject to real scrutiny.

The role of government is to protect the lives of its citizens, but not all means of doing this are necessarily desirable. It is easy to fall victim to evolving technology that is reaching ever higher levels of sophistication. Between the technology that liberates more and more citizens from the control of the authoritarian state and the technology that, at the hands of the state, would enslave its citizens, the race is on. It’s too early to tell which one will win.

In this context it is necessary to refrain from an excess of both naiveté and cynicism. We should know not to give simple answers to questions that we don’t completely understand, questions that are fundamental to our defining principles.

The day after the assassination of bin Laden, President Obama was able to celebrate a double victory for the United States. His main enemy was dead and America remained itself. The side of life and liberty had prevailed over that of fundamentalist oppression and death.

The reality was more complex, which we had already suspected. Benjamin Franklin wrote in the 18th century that “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In this regard, PRISM is the simple realization of the eternal dilemma between security and freedom. During the age of the Internet and the double revolution within communications and information, hasn’t the nature of war changed? Has the risk of invasion by tanks not been eclipsed by the threat of chaos by infiltration of our security systems? In this context, slowing the Iranian nuclear program and preventing terrorist attacks could justify some violations of privacy. In the face of “lone wolves,” our society needs very large ears, though it should also be able to monitor those listening in to preserve our democratic systems.

One thing is certain: European pressure will not change American actions. Only the U.S. is capable of that … and yet, is gun control not at least as important to the safety of Americans as the control of information?