02/03/ 14: Turn It Off: NSA’s Achilles Heel
Those of us tuned into local and world news by now have most likely heard all about the NSA and its covert operations revealed by Edward Snowden. The National Security Agency has drawn massive media and public attention for its profound ability to monitor not only the technology and communications of foreign countries abroad, but also of its own citizens at home. These reactions have for the most part been strictly negative, that the NSA has been crossing lines, personal liberties, and in essence, has been too good at its job. Various forms of protest by the public have emerged, including public displays against the “Orwellian government”, in addition to proposed legislation to counteract the NSA’s spying. A recent action plan by the foundation that formed offnow.org presents an unorthodox point of view: The NSA relies on local utilities such as electricity and water to power and cool off its supercomputers and data centers, and without this infrastructure, “at worst, it could force a virtual shutdown of the agency.” While I believe a shutdown will never occur, at least due to the legislation that offnow.org proposes for state representatives to get enacted, the dilemma presented poses some fascinating ethical perspectives including those of responsibility, action, and feasibility.
The Turn It Off movement states that their mission is highlighted in 5 key areas: State legislation, local resolutions, corporate protests, campus actions, and environmental concerns. To protest the government, they are asking for action from those beneath: the states (to enact legislation), people (to protest), corporations (to stop supporting the NSA), and universities (to stop any and all partnerships with the NSA.) The last point, environmental concern, encapsulates the key strategy of the movement. The NSA utilizes millions of gallons of water daily to maintain its data centers. Other utilities include electricity and sewage treatment. It is thus possible for legislation to be passed, under the 4th Amendment, to refuse to supply the NSA’s centers with state/locally owned utilities and force the NSA to get a warrant to acquire information from state/local law enforcement. The States have power.
The notion that those manufacturers of the NSA’s super computers should have responsibility for the NSA’s actions sounds absurd. But in this case, when it is in the power of certain states to, at least in the short term, “nullify” the NSA’s spying programs, is there a burden of responsibility? Or are water and electricity simply resources provided with responsibility to the user? Is the gun seller responsible for selling to a party who abuses guns? Of course, this rides on the premise that the NSA is completely in the wrong and should be shut down immediately. Where is the line drawn? Are those providing “national security” helping at all? There is a responsibility to have a discussion on this as well.
Lastly on the point of feasibility: I believe that the Turn It Off movement is a form of protest, that while may not get all the drastic changes it works for enacted, will at the very least draw attention to the issue and warrant more discussion on the topic of power over the NSA.
Hi Bill,
I sent you a response around a week ago but I don’t think you saw my message. I’ll write it here too:
The commentary on NSA’s Achilles heel succinctly goes over several key areas of the Turn It Off movement, these being state legislation, local resolutions, corporate protests, campus actions, and environmental concerns. Bill draws attention to ethical concerns that are skimmed over by the original article, particularly that of responsibility. It isn’t just an issue of responsibility that the NSA must uphold to the citizens of the country, but also responsibility that utility firms owe to the general public with knowledge of the NSA’s wrongdoings. I think a weakness in this analysis, however, lies in the actual method that Turn It Off proposes. This system of pressuring companies to cut off utilities to the NSA is deficient in its lack of specificity. Cutting off utilities doesn’t selectively target systems used for the sake of large scale illegal spying operations; it just hinders the work of the NSA as a whole. I think it’s important to note that the NSA does have its own purpose, and despite the unethical actions it has taken in gathering information, it is still a necessary agency in fulfilling matters of actual pressing security concern. Although the commentary touches upon the necessity of such a discussion, it seems a little bit too biased in favor of how the NSA is the “bad people”. Ultimately, I think that in the discussion of feasibility, he could expand upon what he thinks the movement can accomplish in terms of its goals rather than focusing on further attention and discussions. It seems that the movement is quite extreme; either resources get shut off and all goals are achieved in a pressure play, or the NSA dominates completely with no effect on its operations. Apart from minor revisions addressing the above ideas, this commentary did a great job of analyzing the article.