Privacy and the National Security Agency

Within the last year, news broke of a global surveillance programme spearheaded by America's NSA, that without consent intercepted correspondence via e-mail, listened to phone calls and read text messages, all done via co-operation with telecommunication companies and European governments. This massive impeachment on our right to privacy was justified by the tiresome buzzword of 'national security', leading the average citizen to believe that their state would also consider this breach of privacy as a viable course action if it adequately suited their needs.

The leak of powerful national documents by whistle-blower Edward Snowden uncovered that which so many of us had already given considerable thought to, that the systematic spying on its citizens by the state is possible and probable. With this release the US state, and others connected, lost a certain amount of respect and even more so legitimacy, as public opinion on age-old conspiracy theories such as the assassination of JFK and the 9/11 terrorist attacks reflected a growing level of distrust in the truth when compared to the official version of events. Furthermore, the extent of this surveillance operation is unknown and as such we are in the grip of distrust as to it's reach.

This damaging release of secretive US documents highlighted the little amount of knowledge that the average citizen has as to their privacy on digital media, and the implications of organised spying on our personal digital correspondence calls into question the privacy we own during phone calls and even letters (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25770313). Dangerous is this revelation, as we are informed that that which we assume is innate, the right to privacy, is deemed important only when a government sees fit and as such we are prone to believe that other 'human rights' can be equally forgotten and impeached if a gain is to be had.

On a side note Jimmy Carter, the former US president, recently revealed that he had been conducting all important correspondence via letter despite the digital explosion, for what he revealed was a fear that it was not as private and therefore easier to intercept. This shows a massive level of distrust from a man who would have been heavily involved in, and aware of, plans to increase surveillance by the state on it citizens through his presidency and beyond (www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26725670).