Edward Snowden’s unmasking of the mass-surveillance programme in the USA astounded the world. Three years later, the struggle for Internet democracy has just begun.
In May 2013, Edward Snowden wrote a note to his girlfriend. On it was a message about him going on a business trip. Then, he put four laptops in a backpack and stepped on a plane bound for Hong Kong, to start pulling the strings in one of the biggest intelligence leaks in all of history.
At that time, he was an obscure 29 year-old employee of the American intelligence agency, namely the National Security Agency – the NSA
Back then, he was not much to look at. The journalist Ewan MacAskill – who met Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, together with two colleagues, Laura Poitras and Glen Greenwald – has admitted that it took some time for him to actually believe Edward Snowden. But the hundreds of thousands of documents Edward Snowden provided spoke for themselves.
The documents contained details about how the NSA were able to map out the life of an individual in every detail, aided by American Internet businesses.
The agency conducted systematic surveillance of every e-mail and Facebook message sent. They tapped telephone conversations and spied on individuals via webcams.
Edward Snowden exposed a gigantic federal infrastructure providing a possibility to home in on any individual on planet Earth. Furthermore, the whole system had been constructed without any democratic decision enforcing it. He had been thinking about blowing the whistle for a long time. He finally decided to do so after seeing a man in a high position within the NSA outright lying about the surveillance programme in a Congressional hearing.
Edward Snowden was well aware that his chances of succeeding were slim, says Brian Palmer, researcher of moral courage at Uppsala University.
“The fact that he could blow the whistle single-handedly without being caught is unbelievable. When Edward Snowden hid with the three journalists in Hong Kong, President Obama and his staff waited for Snowden to make one single mistake – they waited for two weeks. But he did not” says Brian Palmer.
Even the Swedish authorities, such as the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment, FRA, are able to collect enormous amounts of data – a result of the much debated FRA-law of 2009.
Edward Snowden has described the Swedish intelligence machinery as one of the NSA’s most important allies.
But surely, this surveillance issue cannot have come from nothing? What is feeding it? And why are people not more distressed by it?
Susanne Wigorts Yngvesson is a senior lecturer of ethics at Stockholm University. She believes that fear to a great extent is the explanation as to why the surveillance is permitted to proceed to grow.
Although the western world is more secure than ever, most feel that society at large is insecure. Additionally, the fear of external threats, especially terrorist threats, permeates western society in depth.
“Fear has proclaimed a constant state of emergency. Many people, living in both Sweden and the USA, tolerate the fact that they are being watched, granted that it protects them from terrorism,” she says.
Moreover, the technical revolution seems to have over-powered all of society, she thinks. Our everyday lives have been simplified with debit cards, GPSs, and every conceivable kind of social media directly in our pocket. We have learnt a lot about the positives of technology, but we have not been given as full a picture of the downsides.
The same thing applies for the intelligence agencies. As soon as new technology makes it possible to map out an individual’s life in every detail, the technology is put to use. Without considering what kind of society it creates.
“Data collection occurs because the possibility is there, it seems. When the technology is available, it should be used,” Susanne Wigorts Yngvesson says.
[Illustrator: Frida Malmgren]
If an as widespread surveillance had been conducted with the methods of the old Stasi, there would have been an outcry, naturally. But this new surveillance is technologically advanced – oftentimes hard to understand, both for individuals and politicians. They have had no chance to keep up to date.
Emanuel Karlsten is a freelance journalist specialising in Internet-issues, and he thinks that these new developments have put old social contracts out of the running.
“It is only six or seven years ago that the Internet became a part of every aspect of our lives. A knowledge gap has emerged; politicians and legislators have not been able to protect the web-related rights of their citizens,” he says.
The surveillance issue generates different reactions in different countries. Neither in the history of Sweden, nor in that of the USA there is any former experience of totalitarian federal surveillance of the opinions and thoughts of the citizens. In Germany, on the other hand, the scars from Stasi are deeply etched in the country’s collective memory.
When it was revealed in 2013 that the German intelligence agency, BND, had collaborated with the NSA, it resulted in massive protests in forty German cities.
In August of the same year, Germany terminated several of the agreements on surveillance collaboration with the US and Great Britain.
“In Germany, people followed their instinct. If you have never been subjected to infringement of your integrity caused by the government, such a reaction is not as obvious,” Emanuel Karlsten says.
Edward Snowden’s main point when deciding to expose the surveillance issue was the fact that it was essentially a democratic question. The American public had not granted the NSA to do this, he thought. The congressmen and senators who had power over the NSA had no idea about how widespread the surveillance actually was.
“You often hear people saying ‘I have nothing to hide’. But this is not a question of individuals – the fact that people in power shall represent their citizens, not survey them, that is what underpins the idea of democracy,” Emanuel Karlsten says and continues:
“Had the goal been to protect the citizens from all crimes, the state could have put up cameras in every single home. That is a bizarre thought; no one had accepted that. But in reality, that is what has happened on the Internet.”
It is possible to imagine two very different scenarios for the future.
In the first, time has caught up with the discussion and the rights and obligations, and the discussion has switched to a more mature note. Citizens and politicians, commercial businesses and state authorities have agreed upon what data are private, and what data are public. Where the boundaries for personal integrity infringement are.
In the second, surveillance has rooted deeply. A cloud of stored data and surveillance hovers over every part of the lives of the citizens. Censoring yourself, wherever you might be, whoever you might talk to – all this has become an integrated part in everyday life. Neither single whistle-blowers or democratic decisions can disrupt the system. According to Emanuel Karlsten, it is impossible to know which scenario will become reality.
“There is every possibility that society matures and realises how important these issues are,” he says. “but things could really go down the drain too. I think these next few years will be incredibly important; they will determine which path we choose.”
Brian Palmer has a bleak outlook on the future. He thinks that we may well be living in a totalitarian system in 50 years. The powers protecting democratic rights are not strong enough, he thinks. But he puts a lot of trust into a certain Edward Snowden.
“Edward Snowden is one of those peculiar people who could unite the democratic movement in modern times. He is thought through, eloquent, and clever. He has a certain charisma.”
Maybe, we could unify around him.
Article: Gustaf Wirtén
Translation: Richard Helander
