NSA Defender Argues That Too Much Transparency Defeats The Purpose Of Democracy
from the oh-really? dept
Paul Rosenzweig, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at Homeland Security, was supposed to testify for the House Intelligence Committee about NSA surveillance. The hearing was postponed and Rosenzweig can't make the new date, but he's posted the testimony he intended to give, in which he makes this incredible claim:Transparency is good. Too much transparency defeats the very purpose of democracy.The details of this claim are, obviously, a lot more nuanced, but it seems like it's built on a false premise: that people are seeking absolute and complete transparency in everything that the government does. While that may be true in some cases, it's a very extreme minority. Most people are merely arguing that there are specific things that the government does in our name, which (often by law or Constitution) require significantly more transparency. But, Rosenzweig sets up this strawman to suggest that those arguing for greater transparency don't recognize that there can be any secrecy.
Madison understood that transparency was not a supreme value that trumped all other concerns. He also participated in the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, the secrecy of whose proceedings was the key to its success. While governments may hide behind closed doors, U.S. democracy was also born behind them.Right, but at the end of that process, it was made very, very public. Not so with NSA surveillance. So this is a total red herring. Imagine if the US Constitution were not just written in secret, but then kept that way? Furthermore, in retrospect, it's difficult to see why it even made sense for the Constitutional Convention to have been secret in the first place. There's really no reason why the negotiations and debates couldn't have been done publicly.
In the new domain of dataveillance, the form of oversight should vary depending upon the extent to which transparency and opacity are necessary to the new powers authorized. Allowing some form of surveillance is vital to assure the protection of American interests. Conversely, allowing full public disclosure of our sources and methods is dangerous – identifying publicly how we conduct surveillance risks use of that information by terrorists and, in turn, draws a roadmap of which threats are not known. Thus, complete transparency will defeat the very purpose of disclosure and may even make us less secure.This is the only place where Rosenzweig seems to come close to actually defending his initial statement that "too much transparency defeats the very purpose of democracy," and it's a very, very weak sell. If his initial premise is true, then he appears to be arguing that "the purpose of democracy" is to "protect us from terrorists." That's not true. It's a fundamental error in his analysis. In fact, it can be very strongly argued that the opposite is true: we've long agreed that trading lives for freedom is part of the American Way. Patrick Henry argued "give me liberty or give me death." He didn't argue that we needed to give up liberties to protect him from death.
Furthermore, it's patently and obviously false that public disclosure of how surveillance is conducted makes those surveillance methods useless. For decades it has been public knowledge that law enforcement can wiretap phone lines. And yet it remains a useful surveillance tool. Yes, some terrorists will figure out ways around it, but (as many people noted), most terrorists were already well aware that any electronic communication could and would be tracked, and they were careful to use other means when possible. Furthermore, the goal of a free society should not be to stop terrorists from any possible way of communicating in secret, but to recognize that this is going to happen no matter what, and to focus on alternative means of policing, intelligence and law enforcement to do our best to protect against it.
In the end, I have to think that Patrick Henry's rallying cry of "give me liberty or give me death" is a hell of a lot more American that Rosenzweig's surveillance state apologism of "too much transparency undermines democracy." We should be living in a country that stands behind the first statement and rejects, wholeheartedly, the cowardice and shamefulness of the latter.
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: democracy, nsa, nsa surveillance, paul rosenzweig, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's an intentional error. It's defining democracy in the NSA dictionary, whatever they want to make it mean. You know, black is white, night is day etc etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-James Bovard (Note: Not Benjamin Franklin, as is often sited)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
East is West, Black is White, Up is Down
What else is new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: East is West, Black is White, Up is Down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Spinal Tap Fallacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Spinal Tap Fallacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too much focus on enemy statements defeats democracy.
In order to win ANY debate, you must first have a positive to state. It's not enough to bring up the vague concept of "democracy" -- no one even agrees what it means, but it's not necessarily inalienable human rights, just majority will. "Democracy" is a flawed concept that can equally suit tyrants by claiming they do what the people want. That one equivocal word won't defeat tyrants with their many simple lies besides guns and internment camps.
Every day these criminals remain free, WE LOSE. The call to action is: "Indict, try, and JAIL".
Limited government means limiting The Rich who own it.
07:16:46[i-257-1]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too much focus on enemy statements defeats democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too much focus on enemy statements defeats democracy.
Indict, Try, Jail. Then the rest of civilized society can get together and decide how to deal with each other when that is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too much focus on enemy statements defeats democracy.
You should take your own advice to heart, blue. Most of your comments aren't very positive now, are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency and Open Government
Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.…blah blah… blah… blah-blah… blah… blah-blah-blah…
Blah.… Blah-blah.… blah… Blah… blah-blah-blah… blah.… Blah.…
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transparency and Open Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration' ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration' ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration' ever
So I ask: When will we see some accountability?
Why have there been no arrests or charges filed for their illegal & criminal actions? Our "Whistle Blowers" have made the truth public knowledge. Why is it that for telling the truth they go to jail and for lying our corrupt officials get a promotion with a BIG pay raise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His primary error is he does not distinguish between targeted surveillance and the watch everyone approach that the US government has adopted. Ed Snowden did not rebel about the technology of surveillance but the total invasion of privacy being practised by government agencies. To a large extent the backlash against surveillance is due to the gather everything approach, not the idea of targeting known and suspected terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair enough
Fair enough...how about an ACCURATE disclosure to a COMPETENT oversight group then?
With "competent" being defined as "someone who doesn't stand to make a fuckton of money from said programs."
Follow that with criminal charges for lying to that oversight group, who will regularly audit the accuracy of your answers.
Because anything short of that is just more of the same bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I reject this man's claim. I'm not a coward and he's not going to succeed in trying to turn me into one.
Go fly a kite Paul. I'll take my freedom and constitutional rights, over your unconstitutional domestic spy programs, any time.
If the NSA domestic spy programs were around in 1787, it would be quite obvious why the Constitutional Convention would have needed to be carried out in secrecy and who the Founding Fathers were hiding from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trading lives for freedom is part of the American Way
When somebody says "people will die" as a justification for curtailing liberty, the correct response is "what are you suggesting - that liberty isn't worth dying for? That those who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms made the wrong choice?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trading lives for freedom is part of the American Way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly Rosenzweig is insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberty or Death
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Informed decision
The public must be made aware of new capabilities being deployed so they have an opportunity to withdraw authorization. Additionally, the wielding of aggressive capabilities, including spying, should require specific targets as authorized by a declaration of war against said targets. It shouldn't matter if every other country is barbaric enough to do this, lead the world on a better path.
You can declare war against Al-Qaeda, you can't declare against terror. You can declare war against specific named drug cartels and their allies, you can't declare war against drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRANSPARENCY = DEMOCRACY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just as, surely, too little transparency does!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong, the public want the full disclosure of the metadata of such acts, not the contents of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By the standards of 'people will die' we should never send another troop into combat from this day forward if that metric used. By those same standards, no one should drive, no one should fly, no one should ride a train, car, or mobile conveyance. No one should ever again work a hazardous job such as the oil and gas industry, a repair electrician, or ship's captain. Some how that metric doesn't look valid in that context.
What we have been treated to once again, is another misdirection attempt. It holds as much water as my flour sifter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is wrong with total transparency?
In the digital, all-accessing age the default position should be "publish everything", with opportunity to argue for specific restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OBAMA GOVERNMENT IS CONFUSED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Matter What!!!
Actually, the bolded part of this statement is incorrect.
Terrorists are not attacking the USA because they hate our freedoms, or our lifestyle, or any of the common but utterly silly rationalizations given by those who profit from having an "enemy" to blame things on and to use as an excuse for stripping Americans of every last right and legal protection in the name of security.
Terrorism - real terrorism - is entirely a response to Military Adventures by greater powers such as the USA, invading the lands and destroying the social infrastructures of resource-rich, or small, foreign nations, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, for domestic commercial reasons. It is a response to Empire Building.
If the Russians had invaded the USA and plowed all your homes into the ground and killed all your able-bodied men and boys and destroyed your hospitals, schools and businesses, you can damn well bet that American survivors would immediately become "terrorists" in the eyes of the Russian Occupation and would whenever possible, find ways to bring their anger to the shores of Russia itself.
That form of rebellion against invasion and eradication, is common to all nations, all peoples.
If you stop invading and destroying other people's countries and mass-murdering their citizens, you eliminate terrorism altogether, thus the no matter what part is removed from the equation altogether, eliminating the need to fight Terrorism altogether.
If you buy into the false rationalization that Terrorists exist because Americans have SUVs and flat screen TVs, then you might as well accept the rest of the Fed's crap and admit you believe that the NSA needs to have a Snoop and Scoop office in your bedroom to protect the USA from Alien Invaders.
... or have your tinfoil hat upgraded to sheet metal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason people demand this level of transparency is directly related to the level and quantity of ignorant, incompetent, deceptive, disingenuous, and/or fake arguments we are being presented with her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US are on WAR against democracy and transperancy
90% our finance products are products of playing-Banks.
The Problem is: the pay no TAX like the People of French King and Church in 1788, before the revolution in 1789 starts.
We Need clear bank products and no politic like soviet Union and stop the Oligarchie, with no tax payment.
A oligarchi-System need NSA. Democracie ist a open System!
NAS ha a lot of work:
Who we bring Food vor 4000 Indian childreen, we kill every day. Who we bring trees in the Sahara?
800 Mill. People are hungry,
800 Mill. People has no work,
800 Mill. People has no clear water,
800 Mill. People has no houses.
The Problem is: US states is on war agains demorcracy.
Nice weekend
Best regards
Joachim Geisler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Trading lives for freedom is part of the American Way
Not enough people in this debate are emphasizing this.When somebody says "people will die" as a justification for curtailing liberty, the correct response is "what are you suggesting - that liberty isn't worth dying for? That those who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms made the wrong choice?"