US Has Trouble Closing Door on PRISM

Giving Obama a headache recently is a certain Snowden, who exposed the U.S. PRISM program and created great embarrassment in U.S.-European relations. The White House has received constant questions from U.S. allies; the Brazilian president even canceled a visit to the U.S. The worst part is that Snowden doesn’t feel put off at all by the “traitor” label given to him by members of the U.S. Congress, and Russia has granted him political asylum.

Snowden was by no means sitting idly in Russia. He continued to make moves against Obama, his whistle-blowing an embarrassment for the U.S. When the information leaked out, almost no U.S. ally was seen to be exempt from NSA monitoring; even officials from the loyal U.S. ally Israel had their phone and email communications continually monitored by U.S. spy agencies. If the U.S. wants information on any person in any corner of the world, it will get it; nothing is private, even normal everyday communication.

What is worrisome is that Obama, an advocate of counterterrorism, is the one who gave the OK for eavesdropping, making his advocacy not the least bit convincing. American citizens’ attitude toward the White House has gone from understanding to resentful. Escalating backlash from public opinion has influenced court rulings. Currently, Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia says that the years of NSA data monitoring is “almost certainly” unconstitutional. A Financial Times editorial stated, “PRISM has taken a hit rather than giving one.”*

Previously, major U.S. telecommunications companies publicly shared information until the public appealed to the U.S. government to restrict intelligence agencies from eavesdropping and collecting phone and Internet data. These major companies include Apple, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, U.S. AOL, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. After the PRISM incident, these technology companies have come under great pressure from the public. In a statement to the public after the latest information leaks, they claim that not only are they not eavesdropping “accomplices,” but they are supporters of the protection of privacy and can even themselves be considered victims.

Under this heavy pressure, Obama — moving forward — must issue reforms of eavesdropping protocol. For example, no spying on officials of allied countries, deciding under what specific circumstances Internet monitoring would be warranted, etc. In this way, the U.S. government has been shunned by the entire world — as though only the U.S. and its ally the United Kingdom are off the hook for spying on other countries. Actually, this is not fair to the U.S.; every country uses unlawful methods to gain information. The crucial point is that the former intelligence agent Snowden knowingly irritates the government. He knows how to drag the incident out and make it a story, not giving the government any leeway, plunging the U.S. into a never-ending scandal.

What is ironic is that the U.S. is essentially reaping what it sows. Russian President Putin is the most active in ridiculing Obama: “I envy Obama because he can spy on his allies without any consequences.” This former KGB official also stated that while the NSA’s spying program “isn’t a cause for joy, it isn’t a cause for repentance either.” Is this an attempt to comfort Obama? From Obama’s point of view, Russia “returning” Snowden to the U.S. would help release America from trouble.

In powerful countries with strong intelligence agencies, citizens’ privacy and the country’s security will always be in serious conflict. In the American TV show “Homeland,” the dedicated CIA agent Carrie has suspicions that Brody, a Marine, has become a terrorist, so she sets up cameras and eavesdropping equipment in his house. This drama swept the Emmys, showing that U.S. intelligence agencies often spy on the public — although Carrie never obtains authorization to spy on Brody — and that the American public doesn’t think it improper at all. It can be deduced that after 9/11, the basic U.S. counterterrorism strategy of “trading freedom for safety” as an excuse for government actions has, on some level, gained public understanding.

What is odd is that Snowden’s exposure of PRISM and his fleeing the U.S. became an international incident. Looking at the details of the incident, it falls into the category of being an issue of national security, but it has caused companies associated with intelligence agencies to also be regarded with suspicion. Aside from commotion in the international community, the American public has also been influenced. Americans love America but love themselves even more, so when citizens feel their privacy is threatened, they become angry at intelligence agencies and the White House.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that, to the international community as well as the American public, the U.S. presents itself as having firm morals. This can be considered a joke when we look at Obama’s current public relations crisis. Moreover, responsibility for spying by the U.S. cannot fall only on Obama; his predecessors are also to blame.

As long as Snowden continues releasing information, however, it will be hard for the White House to bring the PRISM scandal to a close.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.