What is the ideal formula to achieve security without compromising privacy?

Geoff Dyer in Washington

In 1975, Senator Frank Church conducted the jurisdiction of the Idaho Representative special investigation regards abuses intelligence agencies in the United States. The reason which triggered the investigation is an article published in the newspaper'' New York Times'' for illegal domestic spying, eat investigate a range of covert activities, which included attempts to assassinate Cuban President Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo's independence hero.

Report, which became filled 14 volumes to study the example of unrestrained government bureaucracy unleashed. In spite of the criticism, which accuses the Church Committee to weaken the CIA in this case, but that the cause of three fundamental changes are: assassinations were prevented, and to prevent spying on Americans by the intelligence agencies, and the establishment of a new control device.

Now, after more than a decade on the'' war on terror'' intelligence services often face similar accusations against the Church Committee. Now, new monitoring tools work published by the National Security Agency through the suction large volumes of data to detect weaknesses in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which provides protection against'' search and seizure unreasonable''.

At the same time allowed the rapid advances in the technology of the CIA using Waldron aircraft (aircraft self) to carry out'' targeted killings'' of suspected terrorists overseas in places ranging between Yemen and Pakistan.

For critics, the issue of control in the period after the events of September 11, the latest disclosures that relied on documents leaked by an employee intelligence Edward Snowden, aged 29 years, emphasizes the need to explore the deep and separately about the operations of the security services, in the sense of the Committee on Church particular era digital.

Any process of achieving find in front of a wealth of material that must be تمشيطها, not only for research on the impact of these new technologies on the privacy of individuals, but also because of the massive expansion in the complex intelligence industry, a role played by private companies to assist in the evaluation of intelligence information, and the numbers are astonishing of people who hold a security clearance.

Said Gary Hart, Senator and former presidential candidate, who was a member of the Church:'' We are now at a crossroads Technology. But now we have the ability to sweep a lot of information in a way that was not thought possible before. For many citizens in the street, it looks as though there is a huge body watching every nook and cranny and I can not do anything about it. '

At first glance, it seems the direct political impact of Snowden leaks that have emerged in the last week in the newspapers,'' The Washington Post'' and'' The Guardian'' limited. But opinion polls suggest that the American public, which is still fearful of terrorism, relatively unaffected by the increased surveillance.

Unlike what it was like the days of the Nixon administration, on the other hand, there is no evidence of the use of 'big data' to settle accounts in local politics. And leaders in Congress in favor of surveillance programs.

Often take until leaks job a long time to seep to the awareness of the public, eg, leaking Daniel Asberg Pentagon Papers in 1971. Formed of violation of privacy concerns an unexpected new alliance composed of politicians on the left, such as Mark Udall, a Democratic Senator from the state of Colorado on the one hand, and others from the liberal left, such as Rand Paul, Republican senator for the state of Kentucky on the other hand. The inherent danger of President Barack Obama is that if you do not seize this opportunity to build business confidence by the intelligence services, it may face a second term than other leaks, which will bring further criminalization processes that can dominate the political legacy. The President expressed this in a speech on terrorism speech in May, saying:'' You must know the nature and scope of this conflict, but will work on a definition for us''.

Snowden revealed details concerning the two on the programs of a high degree of confidentiality, in the hope that it will lead to change the point of the debate on this subject. First: the leak of court order shows that the National Security Agency was collecting phone records of millions of Americans who were customers of the Verizon company. II: The documentation claims that the National Security Agency (NSA) operates programs allow them access to huge volumes of data, including e-mail and pictures of the servers used by the nine largest companies in information technology.

Recognized by the government to reveal the first, but says he misunderstood the nature of the program. Officials say: The database is stored only numbers, names are not recorded. Not تتنصت the intelligence services on the calls, but assets used data from call records to look at the links especially terrorism Bmstpehin.

Said Mark Rogers, chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives: The retention of phone companies all the details of phone records a very expensive process, so it is stored in the National Security Agency. He added: It is to enter into a specific part of the database, you need intelligence to warrant a certified inspection of a real threat to national security.

Second indictment is less clear. Reports indicated that the National Security Agency used a computer program called Prism to swallow massive amounts of data directly from the'' Google'' and'''' Yahoo and other companies in a way far beyond any authorization issued by a federal court inspection. Snowden described in an interview with the newspaper'' The Guardian'' almost illegal things occur almost incidentally in the National Security Agency. He said:'' I'm sitting on my desk, I had the powers to eavesdrop on anyone, beginning with you or your accountant, through to a federal judge or even the President''.

Denied James Clapper, head of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency (NSA) have the ability to have direct access to the corporate servers, and say: that these companies only give data on foreign Bmchtbha terrorism, after it agrees to a judge in federal court. As well as the companies denied to provide any information beyond the scope of court orders. In the words of these companies, the Prism program no more than being a platform for companies to deliver the information required under court orders.

Assuming that the statements of the government and technology companies are correct, there is still a lot of things that could be considered by Americans worrying.

Some experts say: The dispute over the legitimacy of Prism blur the fact that the court orders allowing the National Security Agency to monitor the number far exceeds what was understood, including access through near real-time on e-mail traffic. He said a former intelligence official: The court order under FISA Act (Intelligence Surveillance Act and foreigners) can be allowed to monitor for a period can be extended for a few months. He said:'' This is much bigger than the fact that the companies received e-mails government''. Under surveillance rules, is supposed to get rid of the intelligence officials information about American citizens - a process called miniaturization - but experts say: if this becomes more difficult with the increase in the raw data that is being downloaded.

As well as many Americans will feel surprised when they know that the government proactively collects telephone records secret, especially if we know that a certainty that the data collection will not stop at that. The official acknowledged at the Justice Department in 2011 that the law that was used to justify the command for the company Verizon, already used as well to get a copy of driver's licenses, car rentals and hotel records and credit cards.

The National Security Agency now more tools to absorb and analyze the growing volume of information that will be collected. She is currently adopting a compound costs two billion dollars and million square feet in the Utah desert for data storage.

Among the members of Congress familiar with the intelligence assessments, there is disagreement about whether the data collection in this way useful to combat terrorism. Says Dianne Feinstein, head of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate: The database has helped to prevent the occurrence of a plot to bomb the subway in New York, and helped prepare a legal case against the U.S. was involved in the planning of the attacks of 2008 in Bombay.

But Udall, a member of the same committee, questioned in this evaluation, and said:'' It is not convinced that the compilation of this enormous amount of data leads to thwart plots against the United States''. It was important to'' put some restrictions on the amount of data collected by the Department of Homeland Security''.

Also cast an uncomfortable light leaks on the rules of discipline that developed after the Church Committee. Obama said: The surveillance program subjected to control Congress.

But some members of Congress, even those who have do with intelligence Balijnta, skeptical of this claim. Said Jeff Merkley: a Democratic senator from Oregon: It has never heard of the Prism program, he did not know the existence of a database of phone records, but because he asked a statement on the subject. He said:'' The Obama deep in the description of some of the things''.

Similar questions were raised about the FISA court, a secret court issued search warrants that allow the National Security Agency to consider the e-mail or phone records. And civil liberties groups say: The courts do not only have the approval and stamping. Under the partial figures available, the FISA court approved every request of the 1676 judicial orders received in 2011, while all the 1856 requests made by the government in 2012 approved all. In a period of more than 30 years, the courts rejected 11 requests.

But some lawyers who witnessed the FISA court sessions say: The statistics do not reflect the large number of necessary information in each request of the applications submitted to the FISA. Carey says Cordero, director of national security studies at the Law Center at Georgetown University and a former official in the Ministry of Justice:'' my personal experience is that these courts are far from being just a tool for stamping approval. It is a judicial process very deep and requires skill''.

Also considered the credibility of the FISA courts discussions on important aircraft strikes resume. Some say: It should use the courts to monitor the decisions made by the President while ordering targeted killings process, decisions which is subject to external supervision. Obama said: It will examine the proposal.

Says Steven Aftergood, of the Association of American Scientists:'' The interesting thing is the irony that the same institutions that existed after the Church Committee that is being questioned now. We need a new set of regulatory bodies and open eyes that can help us to restore operations understanding and consensus that crashed now''.

You may provide for courts to push for more transparency. Supreme Court rejected a legal objection against surveillance programs because the plaintiffs could not prove that their communications were monitored. If Verizon customers arms judicial matter lane, they can establish a stronger suit. But Congress is the one who enjoys the real force to push for changes. Members of the Senate such as Udall and Ron Wyden, of Oregon, demanding to make significant modifications to the law of the country to help restore confidence in the protection of privacy. When the law was renewed in 2011, there were 23 votes against it in the Senate and 153 votes in the House of Representatives, which is a strong amount of votes in favor but they were not enough to change anything unless the public mood turns sharply.

However the strongest public pressure, will push the intelligence services against any scrutiny of its activities to the Commission along the lines of the Church Committee. Hart says:'' While trying to congressional committees and sessions will be held to discuss this issue, they'll probably find that the head of the National Security Agency will say that he will not answer questions only in closed session. This would eliminate the target of that''.