Last week’s Republican presidential debate featured exchanges on the pressing issues of government surveillance and encryption technology. But what the candidates left out is the need for our government to balance personal privacy with national security. Case in point: Microsoft is currently suing the federal government over its attempt to use a domestic warrant to force the company to turn over customer emails in a data center in Ireland. This case represents a significant moment for international cooperation and the global rule of law. And if we, as a country, get this wrong, we will fail to balance individual privacy with national security needs. We need to ensure international treaties governing information-sharing are upheld, and current U.S. law, which rules that warrants are domestic, is updated along with evolving technologies.
We have the right to expect that governments will uphold our personal privacy and follow established procedures before accessing our information. However, in the U.S., the current law governing electronic communications access is 30 years old. It was developed in the early days of email when data storage was expensive, resulting in the routine deletion of documents. Since then, technologies have evolved and personal data is commonly stored in the cloud in data centers around the world, rendering the existing rules inadequate and antiquated. The Microsoft search warrant case shows that the clash between outdated laws and modern technology has created ambiguity regarding government access to personal data. This friction is no longer a conversation only to be heard in the basement of a federal office building or at a meeting of federal CIOs. This is now a mainstream debate, and should be central to how we evaluate our next President. The heated exchange between Republican presidential candidates is only the beginning of a much larger debate.
{mosads}Companies have been forced to grapple with the practical effects of our outdated laws. The current array of complex regulations has created a system where companies are left to decide which laws apply. Further illustrating the debate, U.S. federal appellate courts are split on a privacy question that is testing the Fourth Amendment protection afforded to cellphone location information.
The U.S. government’s action in the search warrant case has far-ranging implications for privacy and national security around the world. International governments must abide by established treaties before accessing communications that reside in other countries. If the U.S. gains access to personal emails without following established procedures, other countries are more likely to access the personal correspondence of U.S. citizens through unauthorized means as well. This risk was recently demonstrated by Alibaba’s plans to build a cloud data center in California. How would our government and citizens react if a Chinese court ordered Alibaba to share data on Americans with the Chinese government, citing the search warrant case as a precedent?
The U.S. must maintain its leadership position on these issues by addressing these concerns head on. Unilateral actions to circumvent international accords create further vulnerability for U.S. citizens. Unless the U.S. complies with established international agreements, other countries will likely follow suit and try to avoid these multinational processes. Only when the U.S. takes direct action to ensure our laws and international treaties keep up with evolving technology can we reach the necessary balance between privacy and safety.
The U.S. should preserve the balance between supporting international law enforcement and protecting the privacy of individuals. At the next presidential debate, the moderator should ask each candidate what he or she will do to ensure the U.S. upholds its global leadership – not only on national security issues but on individual privacy as well.
Evans is the national director of the U.S. Cyber Challenge, a nationwide talent search and skills development program focused specifically on the cyber workforce. She served as administrator for e-government and IT at the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush.