, the author of a book that addresses privacy and government intrusion, is available for expert commentary for ongoing stories regarding whistleblower Edward Snowden鈥檚 revelations of massive phone surveillance by a federal spy agency.
That these revelations have had major repercussions is evidenced by Russia鈥檚 grant of asylum to Snowden on political grounds and President Obama鈥檚 recent decision to cancel a meeting with Russia鈥檚 President Putin as a result. The major domestic impact of whistleblower Snowden鈥檚 disclosures, however, is the fact that the government now feels compelled to explain how it is regulating the National Security Agency (NSA) and whether efforts to monitor it have been successful, according to Slobogin.
Those who have been following the expansion of government surveillance programs since 9/11 have not been surprised by the revelations from Snowden, a former contractor now under temporary asylum in Russia. But the debate those revelations have brought on about the government鈥檚 response 鈥渋s what we in the privacy community have been demanding for years,鈥� says Slobogin, Milton R. Underwood Chair of Law in 菠萝视频 University.
Slobogin, an expert in criminal procedure, mental health law and evidence law, is the author of Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment (University of Chicago Press, 2007).
In his book and related work, Slobogin recommends a double-barreled approach to the problem of security agency monitoring.
- 鈥淔irst, there must be legislative authorization of surveillance programs, legislative insistence that the program be universal or at least evenhanded, and legislative oversight of the executive branch鈥檚 implementation of the program,” he said.
- 鈥淪econd, before an individual or discreet group can be targeted, a judge or the equivalent must determine there is enough suspicion of terrorist or other significant criminal activity to justify the intrusion,鈥� according to Slobogin.
Slobogin鈥檚 view is counter to that of some in the intelligence community who say current surveillance tools should available to the government at its discretion and counter to some in the privacy community who argue that a warrant is required before any significant surveillance.