National Security Agency Collection of Telephone Record Data

The recent outcry over collection of phone record data by the National Security Agency is only the latest instance in which the war on terrorism has raised concerns over civil liberties.  Earlier examples include warrantless wiretaps, expanded airport security measures, special detention procedures for "enemy combatants," aggressive questioniong techniques of these detainees, and provisions of the Patriot Act like government access to library borrowing data.

In each instance, critics of the government's tactics contend they constitute unacceptable infringements of civil liberties.   The government claims these infringements do not harm innocent people and are acceptable costs of fighting terrorism.

The government's position--that the benefits of civil liberties infringements are worth the costs--is reasonable in principle: almost everyone would accept a reduction in civil liberties that substantially reduces the likelihood of future terrorist attacks.

But how do we know whether anti-terrorism measures in fact prevent terrorism?

The answer is, we do not know. Perhaps this is because, despite having compelling evidence its efforts have thwarted attacks, the government cannot reveal this information without compromising its ability to deter future attacks.  Perhaps this is because governments anti-terrorism efforts have not deterred attacks.  Either way, we simply do not know.

In evaulating the tradeoff between civil liberties and reduced terrorism, therefore, the American public is being asked to take on faith that the goverment is balancing these concerns appropriately.  That is, at a minimum, an awkward situation for a country that values freedom and democracy.

In some situations, government might have no choice but to keep its actions secret, even if this raises civil liberties issues.   But these situations should be few and far between.  Whether the Bush adminstration is choosing the right balance is impossible to tell.

Comments

How many terrorist attacks have anti-terrorism measures thwarted?

To say 'We do not know' is weak. The best guess answer by any reasonable person is zero.

Consider the evidence that there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Not so much as a single bomb on a bus or other public place. Not one in the entire U.S. for five years and counting.

Has the U.S. gov't thwarted every single plan, or does terrorism in the US effectively not really exist?

[James]

I have a hard time with all of the party line justifications for these so called anti-terrorism programs. They all decrease our security against bad acts by the government. The claim is that they also increase our security against bad acts by terrorists, and that the tradeoff is worth it.

Trouble is, all of the methods that the government is supposed to be using to prevent terrorism are variations on the theme of central planning. That turns the private problem of physical security into the public goods problem of making sure that the central planners are actually using their powers and authorities to prevent terrorism, rather than accumulating power as an end in itself. Given the conventional understanding of the public goods problem, this seems like exactly the wrong approach if the goal is to increase security. On the other hand, if the goal is simply the accumulation of power, all of these programs make pretty good sense.

[James]

I have a hard time with all of the party line justifications for these so called anti-terrorism programs. They all decrease our security against bad acts by the government. The claim is that they also increase our security against bad acts by terrorists, and that the tradeoff is worth it.

Trouble is, all of the methods that the government is supposed to be using to prevent terrorism are variations on the theme of central planning. That turns the private problem of physical security into the public goods problem of making sure that the central planners are actually using their powers and authorities to prevent terrorism, rather than accumulating power as an end in itself. Given the conventional understanding of public goods, this seems like exactly the wrong approach if the goal is to increase security. On the other hand, if the goal is simply the accumulation of power, all of these programs make pretty good sense.

[Mike Huben]

The answer is bipartisan oversight, by Congress and the courts.

The Bush administration resistance to such oversight is prima facie evidence that they are up to no good.

"Impossible to tell" would only be true if we were asking for a ridiculous perfect solution. As in economics, usually we need to settle for second best, because decisions and judgements have to be made.

[James]

"The answer is bipartisan oversight, by Congress and the courts."

What incentive do these parties have not to collude?