Chapter 4 Case Study: Is the Telephone Company Violating Your Privacy?

Question #1: Do the increased surveillance power and capability of the U.S. government present an ethical dilemma? Explain your answer.

Yes, our privacy rights as U.S. citizens are being challenged because of the government's implementation of the National Security Agency (NSA) to request phone companies to conduct data mining of our phone records. The government's position on acquiring phone records is that it is a necessary action to fight the War on Terror. President Bush made a statement in which he had authorized the NSA to listen on international phone calls of Americans suspected of having involvement to terrorism without a warrant. Although the Electronic Privacy Act of 1986 helps protect our citizen's privacy, it allows for business to turn over calling data to the government only in extreme circumstances. Thus, the government can easily make exceptions to rules made by prior administrations. The dilemma is that our rights to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of our government is in jeopardy. Furthermore, no one is taking accountability or consequences for any actions committed by the NSA. President Bush and Vice President Cheney expressed their view that wiretapping is a necessary action against terrorism. President Bush was given a great deal of power to enforce his policy against terrorism so wiretapping has become an accepted entity regardless of our rights to privacy.

Question #2: Apply an ethical analysis to to the issue of the U.S. government's use of telecommunication data to fight terrorism.

An ethical analysis requires 5-steps (pg 136 of Ch4) so I'll break it down and briefly address each step.

1. The facts: Four of the major telecommunications companies turned over records of phone calls made by U.S. citizens in cooperation with the National Security Agent's (NSA's) anti-terrorism program. The companies were AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Bell South. The outcome is that privacy advocates and critics of the Bush Administration made public announcements of their outrage to our invasion of personal privacy. Ethical questions were raised by executives, politicians, activists, and legal experts. Despite many debates that occurred on both sides, the issue was brought up to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The issue is whether the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which required that a court must decide whether wiretapping is done in the United States. The court reviewed whether NSA's activities had violated any privacy laws and whether wiretapping fell within the President's power to fight the war on terrorism. The court's rulings and proceedings were done in secret. As a result, the White House had achieved several rulings that favored the President's policy such as the ability to appeal the court's decisions, changing the language to allow for the administration to provide options to their programs, and a guarantee that the agreement does not block the president's power of authority. The bill which would allow FISA to rule over NSA wiretapping has not yet been approved by Congress.

2. Conflict or dilemma: There are two dilemmas: (1) the need to protect U.S. citizens from acts of terrorism and (2) the need for protecting individual privacy.

3. Stakeholders: The government supports the need to protect the U.S. citizens from acts of terrorism. Therefore, the government should take whatever steps necessary to enforce this position. President Bush and Vice President Cheney defended their position by pushing surveillance of phone calls and e-mails without a search warrant. The National Security Agency (NSA) is a stakeholder. AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South are stakeholders because the wish to support the war on terrorism by cooperating fully. The stakeholders who want to protect the privacy of citizens are: U.S. citizens, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, Senator Arlen Spector, Republican from Pennsylvania, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

4. Options that I can reasonably take: I do not believe that the outcome of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court resulted in anything significant that would favor the side of the right to privacy. It appears that President's Bush made every effort to instill that he was right no matter what anyone else believes. If I had to offer a course of action, I would like to see a committee rather than the President decide on what is necessary to fight the war on terror. A separate independent committee could be made up of members from Congress, the FBI, and ordinary U.S. citizens who are open to voice opinions without any scrutiny from the White House.

5. Potential consequences of my options: I think the decisions made by a committee rather than the White House Administration would have better representation to safe guard our rights to privacy. Decisions could be made without the social and political issues that seem to have challenged our country's constitutional amendments.

Question #5: State your opinion of the agreement reached by the White House and the State Judiciary Committee with regard to the NSA wiretapping program. Is this an effective solution?

I do not believe that agreement made by the White House and the State Judiciary Committee favored the rights of our U.S. citizens of protection of privacy. I understand that the internet companies keep records of our preferred websites and can distribute our information to third parties. Thus, they have the ability to profile us and there is no policy that I know of that can prevent them from turning over our private data to the government. I understand that the cell phone companies have a right to block any text messages that they define as being inappropriate. Policies for this action exist, but their policy is not specifically stated in their contracts to us. As a result, they have already invaded our privacy. The cell phone companies can drop a customer for whatever reason. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is allowed to enter chat rooms and can entice individuals into turning over inappropriate material without their knowing. Thus, we are still under surveillance by the tele-communications company and the government. The situation has not changed unless society continues to make public opposition.