Reactions to global surveillance disclosures

The article's lead section may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: It does not adequately summarize the international and cultural response to the disclosures. Please help improve the lead and read the lead layout guide. (April 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on
Global surveillance
Disclosures
Origins Pre-2013 2013–present Reactions
Systems
XKeyscore PRISM ECHELON Sentient Carnivore Dishfire Stone Ghost Tempora Frenchelon Fairview MYSTIC DCSN Boundless Informant Bullrun Pinwale Stingray SORM RAMPART-A Mastering the Internet Jindalee Operational Radar Network
Selected agencies
FVEY ASD CSE GCSB GCHQ NSA BND BSSN CNI DIH DGSE KGB MSS JSCU Spetssvyaz Unit 8200
Places
The Doughnut Fort Meade Menwith Hill Pine Gap Southern Cross Cable Utah Data Center Bad Aibling Station Dagger Complex GCHQ Bude
Laws
Five Eyes UKUSA Agreement Lustre U.S. USA Freedom Act FISA amendments EU Data Retention Directive Data Protection Directive GDPR China National Intelligence Law Cybersecurity Law UK Investigatory Powers Act 2016
Proposed changes
U.S. FISA Improvements Act Other proposals
Concepts
Mass surveillance Culture of fear Secure communication SIGINT Call detail record Surveillance issues in smart cities
Related topics
Espionage Intelligence agency Cryptography Tor VPNs TLS Human rights Privacy Liberty Satellites Stop Watching Us Nothing to hide argument
v t e

The global surveillance disclosure released to media by Edward Snowden has caused tension in the bilateral relations of the United States with several of its allies and economic partners as well as in its relationship with the European Union. In August 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama announced the creation of "a review group on intelligence and communications technologies" that would brief and later report to him.^[1] In December, the task force issued 46 recommendations that, if adopted, would subject the National Security Agency (NSA) to additional scrutiny by the courts, Congress, and the president, and would strip the NSA of the authority to infiltrate American computer systems using "backdoors" in hardware or software.^[2] Geoffrey R. Stone, a White House panel member, said there was no evidence that the bulk collection of phone data had stopped any terror attacks.^[3]

U.S. Army General Keith B. Alexander, then director of the NSA, said in June 2013, "These leaks have caused significant and irreversible damage to our nation's security." He added that "the irresponsible release of classified information about these programs will have a long-term detrimental impact on the intelligence community's ability to detect future attacks."^[4]

In June 2014, Alexander's recently installed successor as the NSA's director, U.S. Navy Admiral Michael S. Rogers, said that while some terrorist groups had altered their communications to avoid surveillance techniques revealed by Snowden, the damage done overall did not lead him to conclude that "the sky is falling." Conceding there was no absolute protection against leaks by a dedicated insider with access to the agency's networks, Rogers said the NSA must nevertheless "ensure that the volume" of data taken by Snowden "can't be stolen again."^[5]