NSA Surveillance: Must Try Harder, Mr. Obama
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 18 January 2014
by Editorial (link to original)
Since ex-NSA agent Edward Snowden leaked secret documents in June 2013, the United States has stood accused of a massive intrusion into the lives of citizens the world over, as well spying on the commercial, diplomatic and political secrets of countries that were often allies. The world was long-overdue an answer, and Barack Obama has finally broken his silence to address the worries of the international community.
Neither Snowden nor any of the newspapers who have published these leaked documents — Le Monde included — have ever signaled anything other than the urgent need for a public debate around these systems of state surveillance and their regulation. By way of response, Mr. Obama has appealed to lawmakers — state guarantors of justice — to limit the byproducts of this large-scale, indiscriminate harvesting of personal data. Similarly, he has proposed the creation of institutional checks between the NSA and this huge mass of information collected from individuals, states and businesses the world over.
Does it suffice, as Mr. Obama claims, to call these measures a “new approach”? No. The drive toward information in the United States is in no way questioned or even modified. The premise, which dates back to the 9/11 attacks, remains: It is necessary to have databases capable of stockpiling the information generated by 100 years of Internet use in order to identify today’s — and more importantly, tomorrow’s — enemy.
There are countries which wish to exercise complete control over their physical borders. The United States seems to consider total surveillance of the digital world as an extension of this and that the fight against terrorism justifies its actions. But the leaked NSA documents have shown that these tools, in reality, are used far more in economic, diplomatic and political warfare. In other words, what is primarily at stake for the United States is not its national security so much as its influence on the world stage.
That is why Mr. Obama’s speech, though it quite rightly accepts the need for debate, only superficially deals with the problems revealed in Snowden’s leaks. He declares that the phone calls and emails of his counterparts should no longer be intercepted — that will certainly lighten the mood in forthcoming international meetings. But, he adds, the United States will not stop trying to find out the intentions of other governments.
Above all, Mr. Obama has tried to reassure other heads of state that they will no longer be spied on as individuals and his fellow Americans that their rights are not being ignored. It is an attempt which leaves one essential question mark: Are there two types of freedom in the world, that which operates in the United States, worthy of protection, and that which operates in the rest of the world, that can be flouted without a second thought?
Neither Snowden nor any of the newspapers who have published these leaked documents — Le Monde included — have ever signaled anything other than the urgent need for a public debate around these systems of state surveillance and their regulation. By way of response, Mr. Obama has appealed to lawmakers — state guarantors of justice — to limit the byproducts of this large-scale, indiscriminate harvesting of personal data. Similarly, he has proposed the creation of institutional checks between the NSA and this huge mass of information collected from individuals, states and businesses the world over.
Does it suffice, as Mr. Obama claims, to call these measures a “new approach”? No. The drive toward information in the United States is in no way questioned or even modified. The premise, which dates back to the 9/11 attacks, remains: It is necessary to have databases capable of stockpiling the information generated by 100 years of Internet use in order to identify today’s — and more importantly, tomorrow’s — enemy.
There are countries which wish to exercise complete control over their physical borders. The United States seems to consider total surveillance of the digital world as an extension of this and that the fight against terrorism justifies its actions. But the leaked NSA documents have shown that these tools, in reality, are used far more in economic, diplomatic and political warfare. In other words, what is primarily at stake for the United States is not its national security so much as its influence on the world stage.
That is why Mr. Obama’s speech, though it quite rightly accepts the need for debate, only superficially deals with the problems revealed in Snowden’s leaks. He declares that the phone calls and emails of his counterparts should no longer be intercepted — that will certainly lighten the mood in forthcoming international meetings. But, he adds, the United States will not stop trying to find out the intentions of other governments.
Above all, Mr. Obama has tried to reassure other heads of state that they will no longer be spied on as individuals and his fellow Americans that their rights are not being ignored. It is an attempt which leaves one essential question mark: Are there two types of freedom in the world, that which operates in the United States, worthy of protection, and that which operates in the rest of the world, that can be flouted without a second thought?
Next article![]( "The Myth of the Deserving Rich")
