USA Today
June 12, 2013
Pg. 6
Where Was Snowden In 2006?
When USA TODAY revealed a massive NSA database, phone companies denied contracting with the government.
My first reaction when I heard that the source who tipped news media about a National Security Agency secret phone records database had come forward was "Where were you when we needed you?"
Edward Snowden, a government contractor, announced this weekend that he leaked a sealed court order requiring Verizon to turn over the private phone records of millions of Americans.
I was the editor of USA TODAY in May 2006 when reporter Leslie Cauley revealed the existence of a massive NSA phone database, much like the one disclosed by Snowden. It involved the collection of records showing who called whom, along with call duration, but did not involve eavesdropping.
President George W. Bush responded quickly, saying "the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful," and emphasized that "the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities." Other news organizations did their own reporting and confirmed the existence of the database.
But then came a surprise. We had reported that three phone companies had contracted with the government to provide the databases, but Verizon and BellSouth denied they had cooperated. Our sources indicated otherwise, but we now needed additional documentation. And that's where someone like Snowden would have come in handy. By disclosing classified information, he gave the world a glimpse into the legal infrastructure that put phone company records into government hands.
To this date, we do not know whether three phone companies contributed to the database in 2006, and if so, whether they did it willingly or knowingly.
Revelation faded away
After an initial two-day flurry of news coverage, our 2006 story largely receded from view, so much so that when The Guardian reported the existence of a phone database last week, most news media reported it as though it was a fresh revelation. The Guardian did note USA TODAY's earlier report, as did others after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended the program, asserting that it had been in place for seven years.
Much has changed in those years.
As we prepared the story for publication in 2006, a designer pulled out a large photo of President Bush to be placed adjacent to our exclusive. I objected, saying the prominent play of the president's photo would immediately politicize the story. We wanted readers of all political persuasions to focus on the privacy and security implications.
On Friday, my old newspaper carried this headline: "SPYING EYES" in stark white letters on black background next to a prominent photo of a pained-looking President Obama. Another headline alluded to "Obama's spy plan."
It was a bold and attention-getting presentation, completely in tune with an era in which every aspect of public policy is measured with a political scorecard.
Of course, the greatest change since 2006 has been the proliferation of communications platforms. Tracking phone calls to uncover threats to national security seems almost quaint in an era of instant messaging and social media, such as Twitter and Skype. Of course, that's why news of the phone database was quickly followed by revelations about a government database tracking Internet use. That, in turn, was followed by technology and Internet companies saying they don't give the government direct access to their servers.
Will time pass again?
In all likelihood, the current furor will pass. Perhaps seven years from now, we'll see another news organization "reveal" the phone database one more time, along with disclosures about the tracking of any new digital platforms that appear in the intervening years.
These issues couldn't be more important. Our right to privacy is in play when the government has records showing what numbers we call and potentially what sites we visit. Our freedom of speech and freedom of association are at risk when the government can tell who we communicate with.
But for many Americans, these potential threats pale with our collective need for public safety. Having a record sitting somewhere saying you called for a pizza on a Tuesday evening may not seem much of a price to pay if it helps derail a terrorist plot.
It's an important debate, but one we're not likely to have at any length. Secret government programs don't lend themselves to public hearings, and journalists are hard-pressed to uncover any misuse of data. We don't know what we don't know.
Still, the Bill of Rights was ratified to keep our government at bay, ensuring that our most fundamental freedoms would remain secure. Americans deserve to know much more about the processes in place to "fiercely" protect the privacy of all citizens, as President Bush promised seven years ago.
Or perhaps we'll just wait until 2020.
Ken Paulson is the president of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum, a former editor of USA TODAY and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
I love this guy sometimes.
