Majority Of Americans Okay With NSA Dragnet... Or, Wait, Not Okay With It; Depending On How You Ask
from the i'm-not-angry;-i'm-disappointed dept
Results of a recent survey have just been released by the Pew Research Center and its discoveries are a bit surprising and a bit disappointing. After seeing a large surge in the percentage of people who were unwilling to sacrifice more civil liberties to fight terrorism (last month's post-Boston Bombing TIME/CNN poll), today's poll release swings back in the other direction. According to Pew's poll, a majority of Americans think the NSA's phone records dragnet is perfectly fine in the context of fighting terrorism.
A majority of Americans – 56% – say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism, though a substantial minority – 41% – say it is unacceptable. And while the public is more evenly divided over the government’s monitoring of email and other online activities to prevent possible terrorism, these views are largely unchanged since 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.While it's tempting to believe a large number of Americans simply haven't been paying attention for the last 11 years, the more probable explanation for the consistent support of government monitoring is the hypocrisy of partisan politics. Republicans and Democrats have shown their support of government surveillance is directly tied to whoever's currently in the White House.
Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval.There, in bold black and white, is one of the most damning indictments of the two party system and its attendant illusion of choice. Two different parties in control. Same outcome. The only thing that changes is the party affiliation of the indignant. Oddly, "Independents" have increased their support of surveillance programs over the same period, a stat that serves as a reminder that it's not just libertarians self-identifying as independent.
Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.
On a slightly more positive note, Americans are more protective of their internet usage, with a slight majority (52%) saying the government should not be allowed to monitor email and "other internet activities" in order to track down terrorists. Sadly, this too can probably be chalked up to a change in presidents, with Republicans jumping 13% in their disapproval from 2006 to 2013 and Democrats dropping their disapproval 8% over the same period.
But perhaps the largest factor is the phrasing of the questions. A Rasmussen poll conducted during the same period came to nearly the completely opposite conclusion.
Most voters oppose the U.S. government’s secret collection of the phone records of millions of Americans and think the feds are spying too much on U.S. citizens these days. Just 26% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the government’s secret collecting of these phone records for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% are opposed to the practice.It appears as though certain words -- like "terrorism" -- tend to trigger more supportive answers.
Here's the question asked by Pew Research:
As you may know, it has been reported that the National Security Agency has been getting secret court orders to track telephone call records of MILLIONS of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism. Would you consider this access to telephone call records an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?Here's Rasmussen's version:
The federal government has been secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing. Do you favor or oppose the government’s secret collecting of these phone records?Both questions have their own tilt. Pew uses the word "terrorism," which tends to provoke stronger emotional responses. It also gives the NSA's action an overarching purpose where Rasmussen's wording places more emphasis on secrecy and the lack of reasonable suspicion inherent in the NSA's data harvesting. Rasmussen skews things even further in other questions, including this one, which presents only one "correct" answer (logically).
Is the U.S. government spying too much on Americans these days, not enough or is the level of spying about right?Where does the public's opinion actually lie? It's tough to say as both polls use language which could skew results. A certain percentage of Americans are willing to accept rights erosion in exchange for fighting terrorism. Legislators still exploit this angle to push through questionable bills and excuse existing policies. Rasmussen's question exchanges "terrorism" for "national security," a term that doesn't have nearly the same emotional impact. Two very different outcomes to ostensibly the same question.
Pew's more thorough poll does alert us to the fact that a majority of the population is either ambivalent to the NSA's actions -- or completely unaware. Only 27% of respondents claim to be following the story closely, with those polling as opposed to the NSA's data harvesting holding a slight lead over those who support these efforts. This low level of engagement isn't uncommon and has helped to ensure that questionable Bush-era policies remain in place years down the road, in some cases being expanded by the current administration. Hopefully, this latest round of leaks will grab the attention of more of the population and bring with it some much-needed transparency and change within the system.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nsa, nsa surveillance, polls, public opinion
Companies: pew research center, rasmussen
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Politicians can get whatever answers they want just buy asking the question in such a way that people feel they have to answer in favour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just buy asking the question
Did you mean the "u" in "buy" - or was it a Freudian slip...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: just buy asking the question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"... Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy...
Golly! It's right there in black and white: something like 118% of Americans are stoopid. Dunno how that works. I'm so embarrassed to be one o' them!
Polls are so enlightening!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like hell 2/3rds of Americans are okay with what the government is doing. Most people I've seen commenting about the NSA leaks are pissed off about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Milk it, underlings! Milk it!
Milk it, underlings! Milk it!
Milk it, underlings! Milk it!
Milk it, underlings! Milk it!
Pirate Mike approves! Get those clicks!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you realised that (according to you, at least) you are giving Mike exactly what he wants: More clicks?
Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure making a clone army of Dark Helmet could generate a strong enough defense field against some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ironically it will only keep Techdirt high in the rankings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Believe it or not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Believe it or not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Believe it or not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can try to rationalize it by saying that it will make you safer. The truth is that it won't (history will back me up on this one, just check it). You will be sacrificing the liberties that your forefathers fought and died for and will gain absolutely nothing in return.
Don't let them wipe their asses with your constitution. Fight for your rights!
...or don't. Maybe I am just an idiot. You are free to choose not to be free...so do what you want...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or not because this affects us in the UK as well with masses of data being passed to GCHQ probably illegally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In there there is some allusion to "you search ours and we'll search yours" which would certainly facilitate "legal speak peep shows"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You've got "left" leaning media pointing out how Fox flip-flopped on the issues (going so far in 2006 as trying to rebrand the phrase "warrentless wiretapping" as "terrorist surveillance program" but now calling out Obama for "gigantic overreach") while totally ignoring the fact that people like Dianne Feinstein were all opposed to these laws when Bush was in office but now everything is hunky-dorry for Obama because we have these laws that make it OK.
And naturally the "right" is having a grand old time doing just the opposite and gladly pointing out Feinstein and Co. flip-flopping, but not Fox's.
So people who rely on these people for to help form their opinions (you'll rarely see conservatives watching MSNBC or liberals watching Fox) rarely get a wider view of how both sides are increasingly screwing everybody. And the polls clearly reflect that (hell just look at the stat that only 27% of the people said they are closely following this story).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do think it is unconstitutional. To me this is like taking finger prints or DNA samples from every American and saying it is okay as long as they don't use them without a good reason. The big issue is that the government loves to abuse the system as we are finding out again and again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sum of percentages 56 + 41 + 2 gives 99 % and not 100%
Something fishy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WHY OH FUCKING WHY DO AMERICANS NOT KNOW HOW TO USE THE WORDS
then and than
MAYBE THE NSA CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS MATTER USING ALL THEIR ACCUMULATED INFO ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Rather than visualizing what they type, a LOT of people process words by an auditory thought process when typing.
Since Americans tend toward a loose schwa for both then and than, it's common for them to intend the one and then having heard it in their thoughts they end up typing the other.
The notion that we don't know the difference is based on a poor understanding of the process and an unfortunate lack of appreciation for our laid back approach to language.
But than, whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Random phone sample
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Random phone sample
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the sad part.
Ugh...
National security reasons or not, I'd like a little more oversight in my government, especially when it concerns the NSA, who before 9/11 were known as "No Such Agency". The other agencies constantly denied the existence of the NSA's giant Maryland facility, even though it had a road sign on the high way pointed to where it was located, with the added bit of "NSA Employees Only".
They wonder why people are so suspicious about what the NSA does. That whole "you've nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide" thing is a two-way street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have moved to a country that actually respects privacy a tad and doesn't use the phrase "because terrorism" to defend every absurd decision they make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/dutch_security_service_has_rec.php
Welcome to the first international security scandal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry to say, the only way to be sure not to have your data copied at this point is to abstain from Internet usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race
“Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race”, by Nate Silver, New York Times: FiveThirtyEight, November 2012
Note the second table in Silver's article, comparing "Likely Voters Polls in Last 21 Days of Campaign":
• In 2(*) Pew Research polls, there's a 1.5 average error and a R +1.1 bias.
• In 60 Rasmussen Reports polls, there's a 4.2 average error and a R +3.7 bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race
If you think it's completely irrelevant, then just report my post. M'kay?
You see the "report" button? You're free to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race
Older people tend to wait for a machine to answer the phone, whereas younger people are busier. It's not really that surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investigate, YES, get a warrent!
Yet another way the question is targeted is that it ignores the way this program is justified. Secret interpretations of secret laws and non-specific warrants.
My understanding is that Law Enforcement may initiate monitoring of XYZ anytime, and apply for the warrant within 24 hours. So there is NOTHING preventing them from doing their jobs, and remain within the 4th Amendment.
They should ask, "Do you want violent crime investigated so badly that it is OK to violate the constitution, or would doing so within the constitution be as effective?".
This has its own issues, but seems a better question to me. Oh, and the secret laws that we are liable for?????????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing that would prevent them from strictly targeting the right group of people IF this was really about terrorism. Why hasn't any 'journalist' asked the people trotting out terrorism the simple question: "Why is data being collected on everyone, instead of only people with suspected terrorism ties?" After all, isn't that allegedly what those laws were supposed to be about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah...the confusion
Telephone, as I understand it, relates to POTS (plain old telephone system) lines. Cell phones are different. they don't travel on the POTS - they travel Internet. Your voice/audio gets translated to digital, and then encoded, and broadcast as a series of bits and bytes to the other end ... VIA the Internet.
So, my confusion is ... are Cell Phone conversations NOT being recorded? they are not Telephone conversations. And would this light change the results of the survey? if we discovered that they were recording all internet traffic, including cellphone content traffic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a LIMITED HANGOUT psyop.
) Well-off insider with some Powerpoint slides as proof SAYS all the things we want to hear:
) Of what anyone paying attention already knew:
) Positioning of Google and other conspirators who deliver the info as opposed to it and only reluctantly going along:
) But then as Mike trotted out yesterday, it's really not as bad as claimed...
) And diversion with "opposing" members of the criminal gang giving the usual variety of comforting answers, Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers both finding an accord that it's necessary and desirable...
) Until we get to the mandatory public opinion polls, and turns out, why, most people think it's just great!
Textbook example of the way machinery of gov't tyranny works. This isn't surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make it personal, then see what they answer
Fighting terrorism makes surveillance seem distant and heroic: they're not after you, they are after terrorists. In truth, it's a lot more personal than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make it personal, then see what they answer
is it only a list? they say they limit it to the telephone metadata...ok. how about the cell phone? don't Cell phones use the Internet to communicate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Make it personal, then see what they answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Make it personal, then see what they answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Make it personal, then see what they answer
So...are they saying that they don't have any phone conversations...or they don't have any local landline person to local landline person call audio? but all other audio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dollars & Sense
Poll taker: Considering it cost tax payers over $10 Billion dollars (or $575 Billion - depending on what portion of the Intelligence Budget you want to consider) annually, is it okay for the NSA to record your data and retain it for future investigations to thwart terrorism and child pornography even if the evidence can't be used directly in a court of law?
Respondent: Um, no, I guess not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Statistics and Lies
First: the numbers-1,004 people polled.
Majority were from Washington, DC, where both WaPo and Pew are located.
"The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,
finds no indications that last week's revelations of the
government's collection of phone records and internet data
have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff
between investigating possible terrorism and protecting
personal privacy."
Think about this: would you vote against your own job?
In other words, it's about what the people who are doing the spying think about their own jobs..and of course they're going to support it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Statistics and Lies
Can you provide a source for that assertion?
Because I'm seeing, on page 2:
So I'm seeing the Pew Survey claiming a "national sample". I'm reading "continental United States" to exclude Hawaii(*).
(*) Maybe Alaska too. Yes, kiddies, Alaska is on the North American continent, but a lot people never even heard the word "contiguous".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Statistics and Lies
http://www.people-press.org/methodology/sampling/random-digit-dialing-our-standard-m ethod/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After comparing enemies...
Guys in underwear bombs flipping their balisong boxcutters around.
VS.
Guys who can read all your private online dirt and post it to the internets just before they drop a surgical drone attack on your ass, all with a pre-configured quick key combo.
Who do you want up in your sh--?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Statistics and Lies
How can you base the assumption that the majority of Americans approve of this when you're only working with 1,004 people?
Last time I checked there were more than 316,024,000 people in this country-some of them adults.
I call bullshit, and deliberately skewing the facts to fit the agenda of the powers that be-the NSA, CIA and the Congress to get us to become more docile and accepting of their illegal activities.
Of course it's splashed all over the media; just to make sure nobody complains that we are actually upset over this.
"See, you're wrong to get all crazy about our illegal spying and metadata mining..it's in your best interests! Please stop being so crazy!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the question posed to the public should be "Are you happy that the NSA is receiving information about every American in an attempt to stop terrorist attacks when you are 8 times more likely to die from a police officer than a terrorist?"
source http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For all things political....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is about ideals
Take, for instance, the case of Target identifying (correctly) a teenage girl as being pregnant before her father knew. Slate provides a wonderful article on using metadata to find Paul Revere (oh! if the British had the techniques back then!).
Metadata can tell you more about someone than the actual content of the message; it documents the connections to other data that provides a feedback to the original point of interest (be it a person, or event; choose your poison).
It can be used to find out if someone is having an affair, or doing drugs, or is "socially unacceptable" by some other metric (the traditional blackmail category would be homosexuality, but that may be losing it's hold these days). With blackmail comes power, and that power is held by people who have virtually no accountability.
FISA Court? It has rejected 0.03% of all requests (since 1978! none in the last year!) which is functionally equivalenmt to being a rubber stamp. The "F" in FISA stands for FOREIGN: what part of "Foreign" covers acquiring information on every Verizon customer in the USA (let alone the other companies)?
Add to that the Judicial Branch's trend to defer to the Executive Branch when they pull out the "But Secret!" card. See US v. Reynolds where the US pulls the "State Secrets Priviledge" to avoid showing documents for a plane crash, when it was later shown (50 years later!) there were no secrets involved at all; to paraphrase Monty Python, It was that other thing: a lie.
I cannot even begin to verbalize how outraged I am about this fiasco, from Bush's TIA to this current incarnation (same thing, just different labels). Al Qaeda was spectacularly successful in 2001, not in killing people or destroying property, but in redefining the ideals that the United States represents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is about ideals
And what is the nature of those requests. Are they very specifically defined requests based on a carefully charted chain of reasonable suspicion (DAMN, I hate having to write that instead of probable cause), or is the rubber stamp going to generic requests with blanks left open for the agent to fill in?
We don't know. It's all secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Point of Order
you Do have the right .."to be secure in your home" (via the 4th Amendment)
So, if your "NEED" for safety abridges my RIGHT to privacy, maybe the best place for you is to stay at Home...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, it was reported as gospel, with no mention of any other surveys, no fact checking, and a complete lack of critical thinking.
"56% of Americans support mass surveillance. Done."
For the largest news agency in the nordic countries, that's... abysmal. Especially coming from the people who claim that you shouldn't trust blogs due to poor fact checking.
Uh-huh. The publishing business can bite me. You know, when someone vomits statistics in your general direction and it doesn't seem to make sense - that's probably because it doesn't make sense and you should try to find out WHY - possibly by, oh I don't know, looking at the damned survey questions? Instead they just eat up the "facts", chew it some more and spit it back out at people. If anything needs proper fact checking - it's statistics.
They should remember their Mark Twain:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Sad face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CBS News Poll
Federal Government Collecting Phone Records of Ordinary Americans
• Approve: 38% • Disapprove: 58%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gallup Poll
“ …… would you say you approve or disaprove of this government program?”
• Approve: 37% • Dispprove: 53% • No Opinion: 10%
(National adults)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poll roundup
Besides rounding up three out of the four polls that have already been discussed here (skipping Rasmussen), the HuffPost article has results from three more polls by Fox News, HuffPost/YouGov and Reuters/Ipsos.
“NSA Leaks Poll Finds Americans Divided Over Edward Snowden's Actions”, by Emily Swanson, Huffington Post, June 13, 2013
Fox News
• Acceptable action: 32% • Unacceptable and alarming: 62% • [Unsure:] 6%
HuffPost / YouGov
• Justified: 22% • Unnecessary: 55% • [Unsure:] 23%
Reuters/Ispos
• Mostly/completely acceptable: 19% • Few circumstances: 35% • Unacceptable: 37% • [Unsure:] 10%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]