The author explores the origins of “big data” and how the phenomenon was able to spread to a wider audience through parallel technological advances in computer hardware and the open source movement. The article focuses specifically on the progress made by Google related to a series of papers published from 2003 to 2006 that were instrumental in the development of other major tech companies that were able to create provide technical support, making the process of deciphering big data more accessible. The paper then examines how this “democratization” has affected the national security community by providing better intelligence at a lower cost.
In his symposium speech, the General Counsel of the National Security Agency, Raj De attempts to bridge the gap between the public discourse about NSA and the reality of the legal rules, oversight, and responsibility that currently exist at the agency. De sought to clarify NSA’s activities relating to data collection and storage and what legal authorities the agency relies on. De makes clear that certain limitations are imposed on NSA practices, including minimization and retention procedures within the agency and oversight from both the executive and legislative branches and the FISC.
This article examines the controversy surrounding bulk telephone metadata collection that has ensued since their disclosure in June 2013. The author analyzes the “use of tangible things” provision to acquire telephony metadata, including limitations on this practice, the statutory issues such a practice raises, and the ways in which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has decided on the issue since 2006. This article concludes that the Executive’s response, as delineated in a January 2014 speech, has yet to be fully implemented; however, the author argues that the disclosures have nonetheless raised new questions about the relative values of privacy and transparency in US intelligence.
This article explores the tension between the policy objectives of United States counterterrorism efforts (deterrence, incapacitation, and intelligence gathering) and the traditional legal frameworks used to justify them (the law of war and the criminal justice model). All three branches of government, the author urges, have worked at cross-purposes in developing a counterterrorism policy that sacrifices legality and principle. A better approach would be to adopt a hybrid, flexible framework that recognizes that terrorism is a serious threat requiring the use of the law of war in some cases but protects against government overreach by relying on the best instincts of the criminal justice model and its promotion of our core values of freedom and liberty.
For those working at the confluence of law and national security, the President has made clear that ours is a nation of laws, and that an abiding respect for the rule of law is one of our country’s greatest strengths, even against an enemy with only contempt for the law. This is so for the Central Intelligence Agency no less than any other instrument of national power engaged in the fight against al Qaeda and its militant allies or otherwise seeking to protect the United States from foreign adversaries. And that is the central point of this piece: Just as ours is a nation of laws, the CIA is an institution of laws, and the rule of law is integral to Agency operations.