A Syracuse University counter-terrorism expert says the changes to federal surveillance powers will result in needed oversight and transparency of the government’s activity. In six months, the national security agency will no longer be able to collect bulk data from all domestic phone records. Instead, the NSA will have to request the information on a case-by-case basis from the phone companies by obtaining a court order. William Banks directs SU's Institute for National Security and Counter Terrorism, and says the additional oversight is welcome.
Banks says the balance between security and liberty is an elusive one, which can make it hard to cut back or justify the programs. He says part of the problem is no one really knows how effective the phone record surveillance program has been.
"What we really like to know has not been shared. When the government has been pressed to identify cases that have been thwarted or instances where viable intelligence has been collected they have not identified any specifics. They say it has been helpful, but we do not know that for sure.
Banks says what we do know is that last year the government relied on this authority only 160 times out of the billions of phone calls between Americans. He says the lack of transparency can be attributed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as the FISA court. Under the declaration of national security, all access of the court's hearing and decisions are handled in secret and not made public. Banks says the new law pierces the veil of FISA courts with regulations that force the government to declassify "significant" decisions made. The law also requires the presence of five court appointed civil liberty and privacy advocates to be informed and actively involved in "significant" cases.
Banks says regardless of what people think of Edward Snowden, his revelations of the surveillance programs has spurred consideration and discussion in government that hasn’t been seen in decades.
"The congress simply went along with administrative proposals to enable new programs or to enlarge the scope of the law. Since 1978 there really hasn't been a serious debate between the tension between security and liberty. We are finally able to see some of that and I think that's healthy for the country."
