When Edward Snowden landed in Russia and was granted temporary asylum, the National Security Agency and its surveillance programs seemed to get out of the public’s sight. But the story didn’t end there. The NSA’s unapologetic surveillance programs have a global outreach, which incited angry responses from the international community.
Shortly after Snowden revealed that the NSA has been spying, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed concerns of the U.S. invasion of Germans’ privacy and vowed to raise this issue when she met President Barack Obama. In a speech at the United Nations in September, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff expressed her infuriation at the fact that the NSA was spying on her and thus requested the states strengthen Internet control. On Monday, French officials demanded an explanation from the Obama administration as to why the NSA collected more than 70 million French phone records in one month.
If people think these incidents dented the global reputation of the U.S. and alienated relationships between allies, the real challenge would be underestimated. A new wave of protectionism, erecting walls against spying from foreign countries, will do more harm than the protectionism in international trade.
The Internet and freedom have always gone hand in hand. The greatest innovation of the Internet is that it’s designed to work smoothly in the absence of governmental regulation. The majority of Internet-related progressions were mainly hatched and bred in the U.S. Once upon a time, the U.S. was not only a giant of the most vigorous and advanced technologies associated with Internet, but it was also an advocate for Internet freedom around the world. The most innovative and competitive companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Facebook, are all American firms.
But the aftermath of the NSA incident has crippled the social movements in totalitarian countries where liberal elites and reformers look at the U.S. as a symbol of Internet freedom. Authorities in Russia, China and Iran — countries where freedom of speech is highly restricted — called the U.S. hypocritical for promoting Internet freedom globally while simultaneously spying on its own people. These countries now have legitimate reasons to impose stricter censorship and tougher control over the Internet, showing their people that the world’s greatest leader is doing the same evil thing that American leaders despise.
The consequence that’s worth more worrying is that the rest of the free world has begun to fear and doubt if running the Internet without any control is the right course. Rousseff was advocating a new “multilateral framework” for Internet governance and new measures “to ensure the effective protection of data that travel through the Web.” She urged Congress to approve a long-proposed regulatory code for the Internet. This was an ominous sign that nations might seek greater power centralizing domestic flow of information. However, no one would expect how far this trend of expanding government power would reach once these proposals became law, given the nature that government power easily becomes excessive and abused.
Another detrimental effect of the NSA surveillance programs in the short run is economic loss to a large extent. The power of the programs might turn down countries that intended to buy infrastructures of Internet and technologies from American companies. Brazil is considering a bid from Boeing to provide its air force with 36 Super Hornet fighter jets, but now Brazilian officials might look for bidders from France or Sweden. After Google, Twitter and Facebook told the public that NSA has required them to disclose data to the programs, foreigner governments and potential overseas investors wonder if the cooperation with these companies and permission for them to operate would threaten their national security. The damage to the economy is hard to estimate precisely it surely won’t be good.
Spying rampantly on foreign governments and citizens reveals the NSA abuses power without boundary. Under the institutional setting in the U.S., Congress passes a law but leaves federal agents to lay out details and statutory laws for enforcement. Congress should take the obligation of detailing instructions and setting boundaries for spying on foreign countries because this kind of behavior does no good to the U.S.’s interest and does great harm in the pursuit of Internet freedom.
