No Simple Answers on Security and Freedom

No Simple Answers on Security and Freedom

By Cathy Young - June 17, 2013

Years ago, the government snooped on my phone calls.  It happened in Soviet Russia, where, at 16, I already knew it was dangerous to have politically risky conversations even near the telephone, let alone on it.  Shortly after my parents sought permission to emigrate in 1979, we received startling accidental proof that Big Brother was listening.  While on the phone with a friend, my mother suddenly heard mysterious clicks—followed by a playback of her own conversation.  Moments later a strange voice asked, “Are you recording?”, and then the sound was cut off.

Given such experiences, the idea of the state monitoring private communications in my adopted country is unquestionably disturbing—but so is hyperbolic rhetoric about an American police state. 

At this point, there is much we don’t know about the telephone and Internet data collection by the National Security Agency. What is being monitored and on what scale?  Can the NSA eavesdrop without a warrant, or merely keep track of who’s communicating with whom?  Does the fact that the special courts overseeing foreign intelligence surveillance approve nearly all requests for wiretapping warrants mean that their oversight amounts to rubber-stamping—or that most requests are well-founded?  Is it true the NSA programs have helped prevent major terror attacks, including a New York subway bombing in 2009?

Polls show that Americans lean toward supporting surveillance, though within limits.  In a Pew poll earlier this month, 56 percent approved of NSA tracking of phone calls while 41 percent disapproved; only 45 percent, however, agreed that the government should be able to “monitor everyone’s email to prevent possible terrorism.” (The figure might have been higher if the wording had clearly referred to tracking email rather than indiscriminately reading it).  When the question was posed in broader terms—“Which is more important, to investigate terrorist threats or not intrude on privacy?”—nearly two-thirds opted for the former.

It’s easy to mock supporters of extensive national security programs as docile “sheeple,” especially when a substantial number of both Republicans and Democrats seem to shift their stance on the issue depending on which party is in power.  But the inescapable fact is that the terror threat is very real.  Nearly 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001.  A successful attack on the New York subway could have caused devastating damage.  The specter of biological or nuclear terrorism is not just science fiction.

Critics of the “surveillance state” often charge that our response is out of proportion to the threat, since we handle far deadlier perils without compromising our freedom or privacy.   In a recent column making this argument on The Atlantic’s website, Conor Friedersdorf cites fatalities from drunk driving, diabetes, guns, and food poisoning.  But the analogy is deeply flawed. 

Terrorism is very different from the unavoidable vicissitudes of life such as diseases and accidents. We have a degree of control over these dangers; while this control is obviously limited, it is not illusory.  We can do many things to lower our risk of premature death from disease.  We can minimize the risk of dying in a drunk driving accident if we don’t drive drunk or ride with a drunk driver.  (For better or worse, we also accept tangible incursions on individual freedom to combat drunk driving, from age restrictions on alcohol sales to sobriety checkpoints.)  We can take basic precautions against food poisoning.  The risk of death by firearm is cut in half if you don’t commit suicide, and drops even lower if you are not involved in crime. 

Catastrophic events that strike unpredictably and are completely outside our control are inherently more terrifying—especially when they kill on a mass scale.  This is true even when those events are accidental: imagine the outcry, and the calls for action, if food contamination or a building collapse killed hundreds of Americans in a single day.  With terrorism, the impact is magnified by the knowledge that we are being deliberately targeted and that the perpetrators will likely seek new, more efficient ways to cause harm.  In the words of columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, “The fear of terrorism isn’t motivated solely by what terrorists have done, but what terrorists hope to do.”

That is why, even if this fear is disproportionate to the actual death toll from terror attacks, it makes a fair amount of sense.  Dismissing it as “irrational cowardice”—as Friedersdorf does—is not only condescending but wrong, and policy proposals based on such an outlook are doomed.  Persuading people to treat terrorism as an acceptable everyday risk on a par with traffic accidents and food poisoning would require reengineering the human psyche.  We remember how well that worked out for the communists.

Does this mean that we should simply trust the government not to misuse its power and its access to private information?  Certainly not.  While there is zero evidence that either the Bush or the Obama Administration has used surveillance data improperly—for instance, against political opponents or critics—the potential for abuse exists despite legislative and judicial oversight.   (Of course, a government nefarious enough to target political opponents would also be nefarious enough to conduct surveillance no matter how illegal.) 

We need federal legislation that provides strong penalties for any misuse of data obtained through national security programs. We also need more public accountability and public debate on these issues—which is why NSA leaker Edward Snowden, whatever his motives and morals, has performed a valuable service.

The libertarian critique provides an essential check on the surveillance state.  But liberty cannot survive unless a free society can be defended.  And, if libertarians downplay the threat posed by our enemies, they undercut their credibility in opposing the threat posed by the intrusive state.

Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at and you can follow her on Twitter at @CathyYoung63. She can be reached by email at

A Slippery Slope on Immigration
Ruth Marcus · November 19, 2014
The Incredible Shrinking President
William Murchison · November 18, 2014
Why China Is Cooperating on Climate Change
Steve Chapman · November 16, 2014

Cathy Young

Author Archive

Follow Real Clear Politics

Latest On Twitter