Over 30 high school students debated the pros and cons of surveillance in the post-Snowden world on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, the culmination of a 2016 competitive debate season that saw nearly 20,000 young people across the country dissect the topic with more intensity and sophistication than Congress has.
The students temporarily took over a House Judiciary Committee hearing room, sitting in the same seats as the people who craft policy on issues they’ve been picking apart all year — with some of the people who work there in the audience.
One hot topic was the legislation recently proposed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., which would require tech companies presented with a court order to provide access to encrypted data — effectively outlawing end-to-end encryption.
“We need to define encryption policy now or face even worse solutions down the road,” said Zach Mohamed from Edgemont High School in New York, assigned to argue in favor of the legislation.
Arjun Srinivasan of Woodward Academy in Georgia argued against, noting that U.S. decisions about encryption would do nothing to force other countries to do likewise — so terrorists would always have other options, like burner phones and their own encryption, not to mention face-to-face communications.
And he said the Feinstein-Burr proposal has few fans among people who understand technology. “Do you know one scientist, mathematician, or cryptographic expert who supports the CCOA?” Arjun asked.
“It’s not a question of scientific experts,” Zach answered. “Our support comes from policymakers and people involved in the process.”
But the bill “dramatically undermines cybersecurity,” argued Alexia Boulos of Florida’s Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. “A single vulnerability is catastrophic for today’s interconnected web of internet devices. Burr-Feinstein means there will be millions of such vulnerabilities.”
These HS kids debating mass surveillance are amazing. pic.twitter.com/U2hgfWZsAa
— Nathan (@NathanielDWhite) May 18, 2016
Another group of debaters addressed the central topic of the yearlong competition.
“We all recognize terrorism as one of the greatest threats to our security,” said Aris Saxena from Sonoma Academy in California. “Our greatest need is the identification of threats in the first place. Only bulk surveillance allows us to identify threats before they happen.”
Jayden Khatib from Woodward Academy challenged him. “Setting aside important privacy and civil liberties concerns, domestic surveillance fails to achieve its own goals,” she said. “Because it fails to prevent terrorism.”
“The problem is data overload,” Jayden added, referencing research by Bruce Schneier, renowned cryptologist and security researcher at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society. “No magical algorithms can fix these problems.”
Anchal Kanojia from Walter Panas High School in New York addressed the FBI’s use of informants in Muslim communities. She described the FBI’s new Shared Responsibility Committees — teams of community leaders who are meant to keep track of individuals at risk of radicalization, and report back to the FBI. It’s a controversial new initiative that many see as an expansion of the informant program and a danger to First Amendment rights.
“We object to this program as it is currently constructed based on the false premise that someone’s being a Muslim is a risk factor for being a terrorist,” Anchal argued.
The opposing team posited that the informant program is a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism, as methods of digital surveillance become more challenging due to encryption.
“In an era in which the scars of terrorism are still visible in places like San Bernardino and Paris, we cannot give in to calls for small-scale civil liberties,” said Rishika Pandey of Woodward Academy in Georgia.
But Panas’s Chandani Shah argued back that “informants aren’t just racially profiling, many of them are actively provoking innocent people.”
I spoke to Anchal and Chandani earlier this year about Islamophobia. Then, they made a spirited argument that the FBI should stop sending “agent provocateurs” into low-income, minority communities and mosques. They said undercover agents sometimes tried to entrap people who are mentally ill, poor, addicted to drugs, or otherwise incapacitated to plan and commit attacks. And they warned that such tactics breed mistrust in Muslim-American communities that the government can’t overcome, no matter how many community-oriented mission statements they draw up.
“There’s a long history of surveillance of certain groups, especially groups of color, like the Black Panthers, and people don’t really acknowledge it,” Anchal told me over Skype. “It’s messed up.”
“Everyone knows brown people get stopped at the airport,” Chandani said in another Skype conversation. “Before I didn’t give it much thought. We’d laugh. Now, it’s like every time, it’s everywhere. They target Muslims.”
Students in policy debate spent the year defending or attacking one central proposition: “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.”
In policy debate, teams of two are randomly assigned opposing sides of an issue. Over several rounds of speeches and cross-examinations, fueled by extensive research and sometimes personal experiences, each team tries to win over judges and score the most points.
The event in Washington was organized by Walter Panas High School debate coach Stefan Bauschard, who initially proposed this year’s debate topic, and Nathan White, senior legislative manager for digital rights group Access Now, who got the idea of inviting the kids to Capitol Hill after reading The Intercept’s story about a debate tournament in Nashville.
Several of the teams got to meet with members of Congress afterward. The all-girl team from Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart met with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., for a conversation and photo-op on the Capitol Steps, where they discussed encryption. Ros-Lehtinen told them she was still undecided.
. @RosLehtinen discussing debate and this year's topic with students from Florida on the Capitol steps! pic.twitter.com/TdfYBnVwfg
— Jenna McLaughlin (@JennaMC_Laugh) May 18, 2016
Top Photo: Students from Woodward Academy, including Myles Powell, Malachi Robinson, Arjun Srinivasan, and Jayden Khatib, wait their turn to debate.
This is a great endeavour to help younger generations brace with the difficulties of policy making in that area. A point I don’t see mentioned in the debates nor the comments is how all those privacy encroaching, secret breaking policies were actually devised and are still implemented in secret themselves.
That leads to odd situations where agencies such as the FBI are more secretive towards the constituants they are meant to protect than towards similar agencies in other countries. Needless to say that sort of situation is awkward and not received well by those same constituants when it becomes public, as it always does eventually, setting off any debate to an acrynomous, ill-informed and vindicative start.
That secretive approach to policy and enforcement also prevents any sort of deterrence effect.
Besides, it easily leads to the abuses mentionned above, with law enforcement setting itself up to maximize crime resolution rates, up to the point of entrapment, instead of minimizing crime and assisting victims as it was meant to in the first place.
Paradoxically, an ideal police force is one that has little to do, not one that is busy making up stories, peddling secrets or interfering with the life of every citizen, be it its tangible or digital aspects.
They too are disrupted, first by the mass availabilty of lethal weapons, and now by the digitization of society and exchanges, but that is neither a reason nor an excuse to almost exclusively come up with dangerous orwellian policies that would not fare well anyway.
Just keep drinking the Koolaid and you will be worry free
Only 12 comments for this master-piece from ‘The Intercept’…. As European I live in a world without weapons [at home]; there are enough citizens who give the police-forces some trouble, but that has nothing to do with the security rules made by the U.S.-government [and their intelligences]. Those talking & thinking students are in my opinion proud members of your States, they talk about their own future!
If the in particular English speaking populations & governments [from the 5 Eyes] ones and for all learn not to lie! Only during upbringing parents/attendants learn their small children in a sort game not to lie to everyone, but being honest and to learn to have respect for your others…. even if the others have another skin colour, speaking another language, homeless people, e.s.o.
It is a blot/blemish on my own freedom ‘rights’ that there are so many people in this world, who from most rich persons high in the hierarchy of governments are be pushed in a box…. the box of discrimination! Because they get no respect or are not white/Caucasian race….
Having respect for others means to start to be honest, if you are not open you can learn that, but don’t lie to others [from young to older in age, even to children]. You or I can not trust somebody who lies, be honest is the fundamental way to get contact or to understand the other person.
Today it’s almost like normal if a police-officer can & may lie, and those lies goes terrible enough to high in the hierarchy to the President…. Everybody knows that those people lie, but knowing that others lie, makes p.e. your neighbourhood not more save! Police-forces & higher in the hierarchy had “swear on oath” to be honest, give respect and save your neighbourhood and politicians made also that oath, even as the Army, Justices, Congress, intelligences, the government, the president. All together they are a dangerous group of people who will say to you: How you must live your life, with which new ‘strange’ rules….
In my opinion you don’t have to save your own population or own government if you don’t kill as government/intelligences no innocent population-groups in other countries. 9/11 had not happened, but
The whole world knows that the U.S.A. is a warlike group of States who always lie or try to hide the truth, who do what they want as aggressor… and who say afterwards only “we made some mistakes” [without giving any excuses]. Now the Russian Federation with Poetin and Republic of Ukrainian Krim/Crimea have the same working-method…. the propaganda is always the same in both world powers, so all rumours of no respect, gossip & lies…. but everybody likes to life in an not save country of lies, without any guarantee of privacy, no real encryption (back-door) like in all “Smart” products
A few make protest in words, because the police is ordered to….., I’m proud to be Gold-member of the https://eff.org….. but the U.S.-government want to rule the internet, want to rule all bloggers/websites [make them silence], want to rule all journalists, ruled with a hidden TTIP, all Linux-users are terrorists… and more of those gossip ideas of the U.S.-government. And then tell the world “The United States are a democratic country and are…. e.s.o.”, who believes those cruelly nonsense…
In my opinion is the U.S.-government in one word immature and behaviourally disturbed, maybe is the government cope still from the mental feelings of the PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] of 9/11. A lot of army/marine-officers knows what am I saying, if that’s true… then the whole government [and hierarchy downstairs] have to go in therapy…. because this behaviour is not going another period good with so many weapons…..
Elgefino
My lifestyle & slogan [since I became bedridden in 2006]:
I’m open, honest and sincere to myself, to my partner and a bit reserved to strangers….!
P,S.: My English isn’t so well any more, but I did my best for it.
Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed your comments. Peace.
teams of community leaders who are meant to keep track of individuals at risk of radicalization, and report back to the F…B…I…
this is insidious. These positions are used in the middle east. “Minders” are the closest name i can recall, the Vichey. And it’s a trap –
Nice to see young men and women critically and creatively analyzing an important topic in depth. I applaud them. Props.
Do we recognize terrorism when we commit it?
The current meme that terrorism exists and therefore must be defeated is the problem. We know why “they” hate us.
I see Netanyahoo is considering Lieberman for the now open position of Defense Minister. More gasoline on the fire. Soon it will consume Israel.
I guess that depends on who “we” is and how you define “terrorism.” There is no international definition.
People know terrorism when their country is invaded and occupied.
Death from remote controlled missiles is terror by anyone’s definition.
That was the biggest fear from the V2 rocket. Silence until it leveled your neighborhood.
America and Israel create terror so they can fight it. Simple.
So in your view “terrorism” = invasion and occupation, bombings, and “America and Israel.”
Based on your definition, there are a lot of terrorists!!
To paraphrase, “I can’t define terrorism, but I know terrorism when I see it.” What I mean to say is there need be no international definition. Imagine living in a primitive part of the world and having to hear the incessant buzzing (droning0 overhead for days on end waiting for the inevitable and tell me that is not terrorism.
There absolutely should be an international definition.
If there is ever going to be accountability, there must be some effort to define the term. The UN has been trying to do it for a long time and it’s stalled. Until it happens, like you, countries can make their own definitions.
Strong unbreakable encryption is the assurance of privacy between individuals in the world of relationships they own to be shared by invitation only. This is not a bad thing.
Strong unbreakable encryption is the assurance of privacy between businesses and customers in the world of relationships they own to not be shared except by explicit authorisation. This is not a bad thing.
The fallacy of this who “we-need-to-spy” argument is that people cannot be trusted. So what makes anyone believe that spies can be trusted? That spies (cough Pollard) won’t find a way to get paid to steal personal info, relationship info, business info, for political or business advantage?
Spying is a con job. First it pretends to be a solution to a problem that cannot be solved any other way. Enemies? Enemies are created. The real enemies of society are the enemy makers and their enemy making policies. Right now the US is making a whole lot of enemies. Even in the richest country on the planet, wealthy people thrive on poverty as a weapon to hold wages & salaries (return on productivity) on the road to enslavement.
Second, it is onto itself a cloud to which persons will be born into that paints humans as a species who should not be allowed privacy, who should not be allowed to trust all others in any individuals world, that – as Clouseau would say, I suspect no-one and everyone. The self fulfilling prophecy will thrive.
Third, it seeks to solve a problem it thinks it can solve and if it does, it should cease to exist as an unnecessary expense – save Fort Nonsense. It then becomes a weapon of power and seals the fate of all future generations to the fate of the inheritors of wealth who would choose to spy to have their will upon others.
Hell would be nicer. At least there, everyone is equal.
Dante concluded otherwise.
Your argument doesn’t differentiate between spying and law enforcement. It is the FBI (not the NSA) fighting encryption. NSA seems to generally disagree or not partake in the conversation; perhaps because compromising encryption would level the playing field for the NSA’s adversaries that don’t have the same technological capabilities.
Your argument against the need for spying – a claim so broad that it is barely amenable to discussion – is that the spies can turn against their spymasters. But that is just one risk factor that must be weighed against the benefits. You’d think that every major country having a spying apparatus would be proof of its importance and necessity.
As for spying “creating enemies,” that is easily refuted. Black Chamber was created after WWI. It was shut down and other iterations arose after WWII and later the NSA in the 1950s. The OSS was created during WWII and the CIA was established after WWII.
No offense, but this is pretty much incomprehensible.
Yeah, no offense, you’re very defensive here.
Why even hit the “submit” button with a useless comment like this?
Quote: “It is the FBI (not the NSA) fighting encryption.”
Please, the NSA wants to collect and troll through all communications. No, they can’t store it all for very long, just long enough to run it through programs like SHELLTRUMPET (metadata analysis) and TRAFFICTHIEF (diversion to long-term storage) for collection of the interesting bits, i.e. economic espionage, journalist-whistleblower communications, diplomatic traffic, political dissidents, etc. As the Snowden archive shows, programs like PRISM (to collect everything from internet servers) and PROJECT BULLRUN (the NSA-GCHQ joint program to defeat RSA-type encryption on banking transactions). Yes, we all owe a big debt to Mr. Snowden – and to all the other future whistleblowers he’s inspired.
But, you are right, the FBI plays a central role in supporting this NSA agenda – but consider the psyop mentality being used: Since this kind of invasive mass surveillance doesn’t play well with the public, the FBI tries to use a few high-profile cases related to child pornography and terrorist incidents as justifications to change the laws such that strong encryption would be banned. Of course, in such incidents the FBI is justified in using all the methods at its disposal, with a judge signing off on a warrant based on sworn testimony, to infiltrate child porn and terrorist support networks.
However, that only applies as long as the terrorist and child porn rings are not based in Saudi Arabia (or similar countries); FBI director James Comey is ex-counsel for Lockheed Martin, and if Saudi Arabia was classified as a state supporter of terrorism, or sanctioned as a notorious abuser of human rights, including allowing de facto slavery, beheading political dissidents, etc., that might interfere with Lockheed’s lucrative Saudi arms sales. Can’t have that! What would Comey do for a job when he leaves his position some years from now if he doesn’t keep his real employers happy? (they pay much better, you know)
Nevertheless, there is a healthy debate both outside and within the government about this – there are many opposed to the snoop-on-everything agenda of Keith Alexander, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, James Comey, GW Bush, Barak Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Mike Roger, etc. That’s because the dissenters know that other countries can use those same backdoors into encryption systems, the ones that the Orwellian cheerleaders are pushing for, to hack into government databases, such as the Office of Personnel and Records, and gain access to things like comprehensive background checks of government employees in sensitive positions – which list everything from family members to home addresses – not so good, right?
All in all, strong encryption is the only rational option for anyone who doesn’t like the idea of living under STASI observation all the time.
liberty is like your virginity; it’s a one and done. Once it’s gone, it’s gone for good.