NSA Defender Argues That Too Much Transparency Defeats The Purpose Of Democracy

from the oh-really? dept

Paul Rosenzweig, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at Homeland Security, was supposed to testify for the House Intelligence Committee about NSA surveillance. The hearing was postponed and Rosenzweig can't make the new date, but he's posted the testimony he intended to give, in which he makes this incredible claim:
Transparency is good. Too much transparency defeats the very purpose of democracy.
The details of this claim are, obviously, a lot more nuanced, but it seems like it's built on a false premise: that people are seeking absolute and complete transparency in everything that the government does. While that may be true in some cases, it's a very extreme minority. Most people are merely arguing that there are specific things that the government does in our name, which (often by law or Constitution) require significantly more transparency. But, Rosenzweig sets up this strawman to suggest that those arguing for greater transparency don't recognize that there can be any secrecy.
Madison understood that transparency was not a supreme value that trumped all other concerns. He also participated in the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, the secrecy of whose proceedings was the key to its success. While governments may hide behind closed doors, U.S. democracy was also born behind them.
Right, but at the end of that process, it was made very, very public. Not so with NSA surveillance. So this is a total red herring. Imagine if the US Constitution were not just written in secret, but then kept that way? Furthermore, in retrospect, it's difficult to see why it even made sense for the Constitutional Convention to have been secret in the first place. There's really no reason why the negotiations and debates couldn't have been done publicly.
In the new domain of dataveillance, the form of oversight should vary depending upon the extent to which transparency and opacity are necessary to the new powers authorized. Allowing some form of surveillance is vital to assure the protection of American interests. Conversely, allowing full public disclosure of our sources and methods is dangerous – identifying publicly how we conduct surveillance risks use of that information by terrorists and, in turn, draws a roadmap of which threats are not known. Thus, complete transparency will defeat the very purpose of disclosure and may even make us less secure.
This is the only place where Rosenzweig seems to come close to actually defending his initial statement that "too much transparency defeats the very purpose of democracy," and it's a very, very weak sell. If his initial premise is true, then he appears to be arguing that "the purpose of democracy" is to "protect us from terrorists." That's not true. It's a fundamental error in his analysis. In fact, it can be very strongly argued that the opposite is true: we've long agreed that trading lives for freedom is part of the American Way. Patrick Henry argued "give me liberty or give me death." He didn't argue that we needed to give up liberties to protect him from death.

Furthermore, it's patently and obviously false that public disclosure of how surveillance is conducted makes those surveillance methods useless. For decades it has been public knowledge that law enforcement can wiretap phone lines. And yet it remains a useful surveillance tool. Yes, some terrorists will figure out ways around it, but (as many people noted), most terrorists were already well aware that any electronic communication could and would be tracked, and they were careful to use other means when possible. Furthermore, the goal of a free society should not be to stop terrorists from any possible way of communicating in secret, but to recognize that this is going to happen no matter what, and to focus on alternative means of policing, intelligence and law enforcement to do our best to protect against it.

In the end, I have to think that Patrick Henry's rallying cry of "give me liberty or give me death" is a hell of a lot more American that Rosenzweig's surveillance state apologism of "too much transparency undermines democracy." We should be living in a country that stands behind the first statement and rejects, wholeheartedly, the cowardice and shamefulness of the latter.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Oct 25th, 2013 @ 10:57am

    It's a fundamental error in his analysis.

    It's an intentional error. It's defining democracy in the NSA dictionary, whatever they want to make it mean. You know, black is white, night is day etc etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TheLastCzarnian (profile), Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:41am

      Re:

      "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

      -James Bovard (Note: Not Benjamin Franklin, as is often sited)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 10:58am

    East is West, Black is White, Up is Down

    East is West, Black is White, Up is Down

    What else is new?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DCX2, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:04am

    The Spinal Tap Fallacy

    The Spinal Tap Fallacy is derived from the movie "This is Spinal Tap", where the amplifier can be turned up to 11. This fallacy involves taking an opponent's approach and then taking it to the extreme in an attempt to prove that the opponent's approach is flawed. It is very similar to a straw man, in that the opponent's argument is misrepresented - while the opponent may argue for a 4 on the e.g. opaque/transparent spectrum, those wielding this fallacy pretend they argue for an 11. They do this because they have no real rebuttal for e.g. a transparency of 4.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:14am

    What he means is "they voted to kill people but don't want to.feel guilty about doing it." At least in Iran the people who stone you to death have to face you. Here we just use different methods for the same results.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:17am

    Too much focus on enemy statements defeats democracy.

    Just QUIT amplifying what these criminals say, Mike.

    In order to win ANY debate, you must first have a positive to state. It's not enough to bring up the vague concept of "democracy" -- no one even agrees what it means, but it's not necessarily inalienable human rights, just majority will. "Democracy" is a flawed concept that can equally suit tyrants by claiming they do what the people want. That one equivocal word won't defeat tyrants with their many simple lies besides guns and internment camps.

    Every day these criminals remain free, WE LOSE. The call to action is: "Indict, try, and JAIL".

    Limited government means limiting The Rich who own it.

    07:16:46[i-257-1]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:31am

      Re: Too much focus on enemy statements defeats democracy.

      One problem with your simplistic analysis: a trial with secret evidence only one side can see isn't a trial it's a kangaroo court.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:57am

      Re: Too much focus on enemy statements defeats democracy.

      I agree. We must find the ones who have subverted our democracy and our rights. We must indict them for the murders they committed. We must jail them and replace their system with something transparent and legal. Finally, we must place the blame where it belongs. Who killed whom? Who was complicit? Who works to subvert our democracy by keeping the evidence out of court?

      Indict, Try, Jail. Then the rest of civilized society can get together and decide how to deal with each other when that is done.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Joe Dirt, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 7:28pm

      Re: Too much focus on enemy statements defeats democracy.

      "In order to win ANY debate, you must first have a positive to state."

      You should take your own advice to heart, blue. Most of your comments aren't very positive now, are they?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:18am

    Transparency and Open Government

    The    W H I T E    H O U S E :    President Barack Obama
    Transparency and Open Government

    Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
    SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government


    My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

    Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.…blah  blah…  blah…  blah-blah…  blah…  blah-blah-blah…

    Blah.… Blah-blah.… blah… Blah…  blah-blah-blah… blah.… Blah.…

    This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

    BARACK OBAMA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lazere, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 2:45pm

      Re: Transparency and Open Government

      Technically, the Government does have an unprecedented level of openness. That level just happens to be none.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:22am

    Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration' ever

    Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration' ever”, by Jonathan Easley, The Hill, February 14, 2013
    President Obama on Thursday hailed his administration for its transparency.

    “This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama said during a Google Plus “Fireside” Hangout.

    “I can document that this is the case,” he continued.…

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:35am

      Re: Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration' ever

      He may be right. He openly tells us he's going to kill us.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Paul, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 12:10pm

      Re: Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration' ever

      The only transparency I'm aware of now is within our ability to see thru their non-stop lies and "least untruthful" statements.

      So I ask: When will we see some accountability?

      Why have there been no arrests or charges filed for their illegal & criminal actions? Our "Whistle Blowers" have made the truth public knowledge. Why is it that for telling the truth they go to jail and for lying our corrupt officials get a promotion with a BIG pay raise?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:31am

    It's a fundamental error in his analysis.

    His primary error is he does not distinguish between targeted surveillance and the watch everyone approach that the US government has adopted. Ed Snowden did not rebel about the technology of surveillance but the total invasion of privacy being practised by government agencies. To a large extent the backlash against surveillance is due to the gather everything approach, not the idea of targeting known and suspected terrorist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:32am

    Madison was talking about representative democracy not national security. Apples and oranges.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:39am

    Fair enough

    Conversely, allowing full public disclosure of our sources and methods is dangerous – identifying publicly how we conduct surveillance risks use of that information by terrorists and, in turn, draws a roadmap of which threats are not known.

    Fair enough...how about an ACCURATE disclosure to a COMPETENT oversight group then?

    With "competent" being defined as "someone who doesn't stand to make a fuckton of money from said programs."
    Follow that with criminal charges for lying to that oversight group, who will regularly audit the accuracy of your answers.

    Because anything short of that is just more of the same bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:54am

    Land of the free and home of the brave. According to Paul Rosenzweig, Americans are not brave anymore and instead cower in fear.

    I reject this man's claim. I'm not a coward and he's not going to succeed in trying to turn me into one.

    Go fly a kite Paul. I'll take my freedom and constitutional rights, over your unconstitutional domestic spy programs, any time.

    If the NSA domestic spy programs were around in 1787, it would be quite obvious why the Constitutional Convention would have needed to be carried out in secrecy and who the Founding Fathers were hiding from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    OldMugwump (profile), Oct 25th, 2013 @ 11:57am

    Re: Trading lives for freedom is part of the American Way

    Not enough people in this debate are emphasizing this.

    When somebody says "people will die" as a justification for curtailing liberty, the correct response is "what are you suggesting - that liberty isn't worth dying for? That those who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms made the wrong choice?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 2:36pm

      Re: Re: Trading lives for freedom is part of the American Way

      IF it was matter of lives or liberty, that would be one thing. However, it seems to be a matter of die under tyranny or live with liberty. Easy choice.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Sword of Damocles (profile), Oct 25th, 2013 @ 12:11pm

    Clearly Rosenzweig is insane.

    (There's no other explanation for it.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jasmine Charter, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 12:11pm

    Liberty or Death

    I don't know if I would say "Liberty or Death" too loud near anyone in government. They make just take you up on that offer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Brazenly Anonymous, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 12:21pm

    Informed decision

    In a democracy, all citizens bear some responsibility for what decisions are made. They cannot carry out this responsibility if they are not informed.

    The public must be made aware of new capabilities being deployed so they have an opportunity to withdraw authorization. Additionally, the wielding of aggressive capabilities, including spying, should require specific targets as authorized by a declaration of war against said targets. It shouldn't matter if every other country is barbaric enough to do this, lead the world on a better path.

    You can declare war against Al-Qaeda, you can't declare against terror. You can declare war against specific named drug cartels and their allies, you can't declare war against drugs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Zem, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 12:47pm

    When it comes to government

    TRANSPARENCY = DEMOCRACY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    'Transparency is good. Too much transparency defeats the very purpose of democracy.'

    just as, surely, too little transparency does!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 2:29pm

    Conversely, allowing full public disclosure of our sources and methods is dangerous


    Wrong, the public want the full disclosure of the metadata of such acts, not the contents of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 3:40pm

    Looks to me like too much spying damages democracy.

    By the standards of 'people will die' we should never send another troop into combat from this day forward if that metric used. By those same standards, no one should drive, no one should fly, no one should ride a train, car, or mobile conveyance. No one should ever again work a hazardous job such as the oil and gas industry, a repair electrician, or ship's captain. Some how that metric doesn't look valid in that context.

    What we have been treated to once again, is another misdirection attempt. It holds as much water as my flour sifter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 5:26pm

    And, um, exactly what IS "the purpose of democracy"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Postulator (profile), Oct 25th, 2013 @ 6:23pm

    What is wrong with total transparency?

    I think government should be totally transparent. It is there for the citizens, and they need to know what is being done in their names. Without knowing what my government knows, how can I trust anyone, from politicians to the public servant who assesses my tax return?

    In the digital, all-accessing age the default position should be "publish everything", with opportunity to argue for specific restrictions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rex Crouch, Oct 25th, 2013 @ 8:53pm

    OBAMA GOVERNMENT IS CONFUSED

    We even hear Obama saying it over and over, calling our country a Democracy, just like this NSA Chump. IT'S A REPUBLIC, IT'S NOT A DEMOCRACY.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    GEMont, Oct 26th, 2013 @ 5:20pm

    No Matter What!!!

    "Furthermore, the goal of a free society should not be to stop terrorists from any possible way of communicating in secret, but to recognize that this is going to happen no matter what, and to focus on alternative means of policing, intelligence and law enforcement to do our best to protect against it."

    Actually, the bolded part of this statement is incorrect.

    Terrorists are not attacking the USA because they hate our freedoms, or our lifestyle, or any of the common but utterly silly rationalizations given by those who profit from having an "enemy" to blame things on and to use as an excuse for stripping Americans of every last right and legal protection in the name of security.

    Terrorism - real terrorism - is entirely a response to Military Adventures by greater powers such as the USA, invading the lands and destroying the social infrastructures of resource-rich, or small, foreign nations, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, for domestic commercial reasons. It is a response to Empire Building.

    If the Russians had invaded the USA and plowed all your homes into the ground and killed all your able-bodied men and boys and destroyed your hospitals, schools and businesses, you can damn well bet that American survivors would immediately become "terrorists" in the eyes of the Russian Occupation and would whenever possible, find ways to bring their anger to the shores of Russia itself.

    That form of rebellion against invasion and eradication, is common to all nations, all peoples.

    If you stop invading and destroying other people's countries and mass-murdering their citizens, you eliminate terrorism altogether, thus the no matter what part is removed from the equation altogether, eliminating the need to fight Terrorism altogether.

    If you buy into the false rationalization that Terrorists exist because Americans have SUVs and flat screen TVs, then you might as well accept the rest of the Fed's crap and admit you believe that the NSA needs to have a Snoop and Scoop office in your bedroom to protect the USA from Alien Invaders.

    ... or have your tinfoil hat upgraded to sheet metal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ned morlef, Oct 27th, 2013 @ 7:29am

    Transparency

    as long as they hunt and kill a man over a wild plant then, steal his wealth from the widow and orphans there is no transparency or truth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Loki, Oct 27th, 2013 @ 11:03am

    The details of this claim are, obviously, a lot more nuanced, but it seems like it's built on a false premise: that people are seeking absolute and complete transparency in everything that the government does.

    The reason people demand this level of transparency is directly related to the level and quantity of ignorant, incompetent, deceptive, disingenuous, and/or fake arguments we are being presented with her.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Edger, Oct 28th, 2013 @ 8:17am

    Well....

    Rosenzweig is about as transparent as they come. Just like with Obama, anyone paying attention should have no trouble seeing through him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joachim Geisler, Dec 12th, 2013 @ 9:41pm

    US are on WAR against democracy and transperancy

    We are in 2013 in the same situation like 1788.

    90% our finance products are products of playing-Banks.
    The Problem is: the pay no TAX like the People of French King and Church in 1788, before the revolution in 1789 starts.

    We Need clear bank products and no politic like soviet Union and stop the Oligarchie, with no tax payment.
    A oligarchi-System need NSA. Democracie ist a open System!

    NAS ha a lot of work:
    Who we bring Food vor 4000 Indian childreen, we kill every day. Who we bring trees in the Sahara?

    800 Mill. People are hungry,
    800 Mill. People has no work,
    800 Mill. People has no clear water,
    800 Mill. People has no houses.

    The Problem is: US states is on war agains demorcracy.
    Nice weekend

    Best regards
    Joachim Geisler

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This