Reactions to global surveillance disclosures

The global surveillance disclosure released to media by Edward Snowden has caused tension in the bilateral relations of the United States with several of its allies and economic partners as well as in its relationship with the European Union.

"[4] In June 2014, Alexander's recently installed successor as the NSA's director, U.S. Navy Admiral Michael S. Rogers, said that while some terrorist groups had altered their communications to avoid surveillance techniques revealed by Snowden, the damage done overall did not lead him to conclude that "the sky is falling."

Conceding there was no absolute protection against leaks by a dedicated insider with access to the agency's networks, Rogers said the NSA must nevertheless "ensure that the volume" of data taken by Snowden "can't be stolen again.

[12] These documents were: On July 19, 2013, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the Obama administration, urging it to allow companies involved in the NSA's surveillance to report about these activities and to increase government transparency.

Fearing the risk of being targeted by government surveillance, 28% of PEN's American members have curbed their usage of social media, and 16% have self-censored themselves by avoiding controversial topics in their writings.

"[36] Five Latin American countries—Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela—voiced their concerns to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after the plane of Bolivia's President Evo Morales was denied entry by a number of western European countries, and was forced to reroute to Austria based on "suspicion that United States whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board".

[37] On August 8, 2013, Lavabit, a Texas-based secure email service provider reportedly used by Snowden, abruptly announced it was shutting down operations after nearly 10 years of business.

A senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said it was "clear to every single tech company that this is affecting their bottom line," and predicted that the U.S. cloud computing industry could lose $35 billion by 2016.

"[61] Also in January 2014, a review by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) concluded that the NSA's collection of every U.S. phone record on a daily basis violates the legal restrictions of the statute cited to authorize it.

"[63] A second PCLOB review, in July 2014, concluded that the NSA's surveillance program targeting foreigners overseas is lawful, under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and effective but that certain elements push "close to the line" of being unconstitutional.

[88] In April 2014, The Washington Post reported that some federal judges holding low-level positions had been balking at sweeping requests by law enforcement for cellphone and other sensitive personal data.

Albert Gidari Jr., a partner at Perkins Coie who represents technology and telecommunications companies, told the Post that these judges "don't want to be the ones who approve an order that later becomes public and embarrassing….

According to the Post, some legal observers have called this "the Magistrates' Revolt," which began several years ago; however, it gained power amid mounting public anger about government surveillance capabilities after the NSA disclosures.

[89] In the wake of the NSA leaks, conservative public interest lawyer and Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit claiming that the federal government had unlawfully collected metadata for his telephone calls and was harassing him (see Klayman v. Obama), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Director of National Intelligence James Clapper alleging that the NSA's phone records program was unconstitutional (see ACLU v. Clapper).

Once the judge in each case had issued rulings seemingly at odds with one another, Gary Schmitt (former staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) wrote in The Weekly Standard, "The two decisions have generated public confusion over the constitutionality of the NSA's data collection program—a kind of judicial 'he-said, she-said' standoff.

[98][99] The 'day of action' primarily took the form of webpage banner-advertisements urging viewers to contact their lawmakers over issues surrounding cyber surveillance and a free Internet.

[100] As February 11 drew to a close, The New York Times posted a blog titled "The Day the Internet Didn't Fight Back," reporting that "the protest on Tuesday barely registered.

The eight major technology companies—Google, Microsoft, Facebook, AOL, Apple, Twitter, Yahoo and LinkedIn- only participated Tuesday insofar as having a joint website flash the protest banner.

"[106] Pan-democrat legislators Gary Fan and Claudia Mo said that the perceived U.S. prosecution against Snowden will set "a dangerous precedent and will likely be used to justify similar actions" by authoritarian governments.

"[113] On November 2, 2013, the Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman summoned the ambassadors of Australia and the United States to protest an alleged American-led spying network in Asia.

Presented by Claude Moraes, British Member of the European Parliament from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, the report found what it called "compelling evidence of the existence of far-reaching, complex and highly technologically advanced systems designed by US and some Member States' intelligence services to collect, store and analyze communication and location data and metadata of all citizens around the world on an unprecedented scale and in an indiscriminate and non-suspicion-based manner."

[124] According to The Wall Street Journal, "The outcry over NSA eavesdropping has been most pronounced in Germany, a country whose history of dictatorship has left the population particularly sensitive to violations of personal privacy.

[129] At the end of August, under the orders of the German domestic intelligence agency, a federal police helicopter conducted a low-altitude flyover of the United States Consulate in Frankfurt, apparently in search of suspected clandestine eavesdropping facilities.

"[143][144][145] British Prime Minister David Cameron issued a veiled threat to resort to prior restraint, through high court injunctions and DA-Notices, if The Guardian did not obey his demands to stop reporting its revelations on spying by GCHQ and the NSA,[146] a development that "alarmed" the Committee to Protect Journalists[147] and spurred 70 of the world's leading human rights organizations to write an open letter to the newspaper expressing their concern about press and other freedoms in the UK.

[148][149] In 2014 the Director of GCHQ authored an article in the Financial Times on the topic of internet surveillance, stating that "however much [large US technology companies] may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals" and that GCHQ and its sister agencies "cannot tackle these challenges at scale without greater support from the private sector", arguing that most internet users "would be comfortable with a better and more sustainable relationship between the [intelligence] agencies and the tech companies".

Since the 2013 surveillance disclosures, large US technology companies have improved security and become less co-operative with foreign intelligence agencies, including those of the UK, generally requiring a US court order before disclosing data.

"[153] On November 1, 2013, the Foreign Ministry of Indonesia summoned Australia's Ambassador Greg Moriarty to explain his country's surveillance of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and other Indonesian political leaders.

London-based Index on Censorship called upon the U.S. government to uphold the First Amendment, saying, "The mass surveillance of citizens' private communications is unacceptable—it both invades privacy and threatens freedom of expression.

"[163] In July 2013, speaking to the foreign affairs committee of the Icelandic Parliament in Reykjavík, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that in his personal opinion, Edward Snowden had misused his right to digital access and created problems that outweigh the benefits of public disclosure.

101)" (season 1, episode 12, minutes 00:22:00-00:22:55), one of the technical experts Red tasked to reconstitute documents shredded by American governmental agencies reports: "We actually reached out to the Germans for help.