U.S. Eavesdropping Reform:A Mechanism for VerificationIs Necessary
Published in Mainichi Shimbun
(Japan) on 21 January 2014
by Editorial (link to original)
(Japan) on 21 January 2014
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Stephanie Sanders.
Edited by Brent Landon.
Could this be a step forward? The Obama administration, which has come under heavy criticism from several countries for eavesdropping, has laid out a policy of not monitoring the communications of the leaders and governments of its "allies and close friends." With the decision to outsource the management of phone call records (metadata) collected by the National Security Agency — which could be said to be the center of the eavesdropping scandal — to agencies outside the government, constant evaluation could be carried out on the extent of respect for the privacy of citizens.
Since Edward Snowden, a former employee of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, exposed U.S. wire-tapping last year, it has come to light that the NSA wire-tapped the phones of at least 35 foreign leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Foreign leaders were outraged by this, and the Obama administration has been under pressure to institute certain guidelines for wire-tapping.
President Obama emphasized citizen’s rights and [government] transparency with these reforms. The president spoke of how America’s intelligence-gathering activities uncovered the strategic plans of the Imperial Japanese Army. The NSA was especially active during the Cold War, but, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, it also conducted intelligence gathering, which was inconsistent with American values. Hence, now, there are news of an attempt to set new standards for intelligence gathering, in accordance with the changing times and technological innovations.
Fundamentally, I can support this. A country that pries indiscriminately into citizens’ private information cannot be democratic and causes trouble for those citizens who are spied on. It is significant that the president promised to refrain from invasions of privacy, or, more specifically, the gathering of information from private enterprises unrelated to security, and so forth, in the name of terrorism prevention and security.
However, the fact of the matter is that there will be an immediate flood of questions. Until now, the U.S. has monitored the communications of foreign leaders without their knowledge. In that case, how can it be verified whether or not those leaders are being wire-tapped? It is not an issue that can be cleared up with a gentlemen’s agreement. Rather, a concrete verification measure should be required for wire-tapping, as European countries have been demanding.
There is a bigger issue: Russia and China are also engaging in eavesdropping activities. Even if we only criticize the United States, that will not solve the problem of governmental wiretapping. What is more, if U.S. allies — including Japan — put the brakes on intelligence gathering, it is a dilemma that will come back to haunt them.
In other words, we should also address information gathering by countries other than the United States. Currently, international information warfare has gone mainstream: from spies gathering personal information to reconnaissance satellite surveillance and cyberwarfare. Quite simply, it has the aura of a "battle without honor or humanity." It is important to introduce rules to this sort of battle, as we are now in an age when the establishment of a system for preventing information theft — whether national or individual — is imperative.
Since Edward Snowden, a former employee of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, exposed U.S. wire-tapping last year, it has come to light that the NSA wire-tapped the phones of at least 35 foreign leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Foreign leaders were outraged by this, and the Obama administration has been under pressure to institute certain guidelines for wire-tapping.
President Obama emphasized citizen’s rights and [government] transparency with these reforms. The president spoke of how America’s intelligence-gathering activities uncovered the strategic plans of the Imperial Japanese Army. The NSA was especially active during the Cold War, but, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, it also conducted intelligence gathering, which was inconsistent with American values. Hence, now, there are news of an attempt to set new standards for intelligence gathering, in accordance with the changing times and technological innovations.
Fundamentally, I can support this. A country that pries indiscriminately into citizens’ private information cannot be democratic and causes trouble for those citizens who are spied on. It is significant that the president promised to refrain from invasions of privacy, or, more specifically, the gathering of information from private enterprises unrelated to security, and so forth, in the name of terrorism prevention and security.
However, the fact of the matter is that there will be an immediate flood of questions. Until now, the U.S. has monitored the communications of foreign leaders without their knowledge. In that case, how can it be verified whether or not those leaders are being wire-tapped? It is not an issue that can be cleared up with a gentlemen’s agreement. Rather, a concrete verification measure should be required for wire-tapping, as European countries have been demanding.
There is a bigger issue: Russia and China are also engaging in eavesdropping activities. Even if we only criticize the United States, that will not solve the problem of governmental wiretapping. What is more, if U.S. allies — including Japan — put the brakes on intelligence gathering, it is a dilemma that will come back to haunt them.
In other words, we should also address information gathering by countries other than the United States. Currently, international information warfare has gone mainstream: from spies gathering personal information to reconnaissance satellite surveillance and cyberwarfare. Quite simply, it has the aura of a "battle without honor or humanity." It is important to introduce rules to this sort of battle, as we are now in an age when the establishment of a system for preventing information theft — whether national or individual — is imperative.