"It's called a warrant"

This past Friday, November 7th, Edward Snowden surprised Eliza Krigman, a journalist for TakePart.com, with an interview.  He mentions in the interview that there has been a trend in governments secretly giving themselves "more and more authority without the consent or awareness of the public."  As the Frontline film showed, former Vice President Cheney and his lawyer found ways to push the limits of the President's power as Chief of Staff.  Slowly, the President and his cabinet were able to secure more holds on powerful organizations like the National Security Agency (NSA), and even those with social (and political) power like the New York Times.  The time of a strong Congress and weak Presidency was reversed...and in some ways turned into a dictatorship which utilized borderline illegal methods of coercion.

Unfortunately, this is not something I have any real solution to, and it doesn't seem like anyone else does either.  The obvious answer is to elect better representation, but, again, as the Frontline film showed, it is very difficult to know how someone will act once in office, and if his/her actions with reflected what was preached during his/her campaign.  For example, President Obama lobbying against unwarranted phone taps and email screenings, then voted for a bill about it in Congress.

Snowden went on to discuss the press's involvement in issues such as this.  "Journalists shouldn't need to 'operate sneakily' to have an off-the-record conversation.  Instead of just using 'the tactics of making communications more secure,' the media 'need to push on regulations' that preserve the freed of the press."  It is obvious that Snowden still holds various news sources responsible for not publishing their initial findings about "The Program."  Snowden intentionally did not go to The New York Times with his NSA documents because of their previous failure to inform the American citizens of what their government was doing.

Snowden also recognizes that the press cannot do this alone.  The American people need to rebel against the concept that the "government needs exhaustive access to private data," meaning American citizens should not accept the claim that the government needs to be able to access all of our private information.  Snowden pushes Americans to demand answers from their government instead of leaving all discussion to lawyers.  He also urges the use of technical experts, not political officials.

Lastly, Snowden discussed Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey comments that called on Congress to prevent major companies from providing unlockable encryption to their customers' data (e.g. Google and Apple).  Despite his insistence, Comey has to admit that he did not yet know how companies would "build in access to encrypted systems that only allows that access under legal circumstances."  Snowden claims this is all "hogwash" and citizens should be skeptical of this "front-door" approach.  "When James Comey asks for a front door, we need to remind him that he already has it," Snowden says.  "It's called a warrant."

Snowden's last comment really hit home with me.  Throughout the entire Frontline documentary, I could not help but think about the idea of just issuing warrants.  If substantial evidence was available and it was required to get more information, then yes, with a judge's permission, a person's data should be accessed in order to further the investigation; but not for any other purpose.  It is unconstitutional to invade someone's privacy on a whim, without any basis of criminal intent.  Our court system clearly states, "Innocent until proven guilty," but this system instead implies, "Guilty until proven innocent."