Jane Mayer and James Surowiecki on government secrets and privacy.

Summary

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode: Jane Mayer and James Surowiecki on Government Secrets and Privacy
Date: June 14, 2013
Host: Dorothy Wickenden
Guests: Jane Mayer (staff writer), James Surowiecki (staff writer)

---

Overview

In this episode, Dorothy Wickenden convenes New Yorker writers Jane Mayer and James Surowiecki to analyze the fallout of Edward Snowden's revelations about the National Security Agency's (NSA) widespread surveillance of Americans' phone records and digital communications. The discussion explores the shifting lines between privacy and security in the post-9/11 era, public reactions to surveillance and whistleblowing, and the unprecedented power technology has given both companies and the government to collect personal data. The conversation takes a critical look at government secrecy, transparency promises, and the legal challenges presented by mass data collection.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Impact of Snowden's Leaks (01:14 – 03:35)

• Scope and Novelty of Disclosures:
  • Snowden revealed the "blanket and routine searches" of Americans' phone data—who, when, and how long people call—and the government’s access to Internet companies’ records.
  • Previously, Americans believed surveillance was rare or targeted, not routine and retained for years.
  • Jane Mayer:

    “I think people understood that the capacity is there, but I think they had thought that it was a rare thing, not a routine thing, and not that these records were necessarily being kept as they are apparently for five years.” (03:12)

Public and Political Reaction (03:35 – 05:00)

• Polarized Debate:

  • Responses to Snowden range from “traitor” (John Boehner) to public service (Ron Paul).
  • Polls reveal contradictory feelings: many are glad for the disclosure but favor prosecution.
  • James Surowiecki observes:

    “A majority of Americans are happy that...Snowden did what he did, but a majority or maybe a plurality nonetheless think that he should be prosecuted for what he did.” (03:54)

• Nuances in Public Approval:

  • Support varies depending on how the question is framed (e.g., “ordinary Americans” being surveilled gets less support).
  • Jane Mayer notes:

    “When you use a word like ordinary Americans, then people begin to identify with it as, oh, you mean me, and they're not necessarily comfortable with it.” (04:38)

The Tension Between Privacy and Security (05:00 – 06:50)

• The Technological Scale of Surveillance:

  • “Big data” has enabled both companies and government to amass and exploit private information at an unprecedented scale.
  • Automated processes (ex: Gmail scanning) go largely unquestioned.
  • This new paradigm has outpaced both regulatory frameworks and public understanding.
  • Surowiecki:

    “The era of big data...has just created a whole host of issues that we haven't fully, really kind of thought through how we feel about.” (05:38)

• Commercial vs. Government Surveillance:

  • Mayer distinguishes between corporate data collection (implied consent) and state collection (often secret, with consequences like prosecution).
  • Mayer:

    “The government can prosecute you. It can use this information to go after you for criminal purposes, and it has a very different power than a company collecting this information.” (06:40)

Effectiveness and Invasiveness of Government Data Mining (06:50 – 08:17)

• Arguments for Surveillance:
  • The Obama administration claims such programs help uncover terror plots and enable faster law enforcement action.
  • NSA’s metadata analysis purportedly reduced the time to catch suspects from weeks to days.
• The Double-Edged Sword of Metadata:
  • Even metadata is extremely revealing (health, finances, politics, relationships).
  • Mayer details how much sensitive information can be derived from seemingly minor data points.

Legal Challenges and Constitutional Debate (08:17 – 09:37)

• ACLU Lawsuit:

  • The ACLU is challenging bulk data collection as unconstitutional.
  • Mayer explains the difficulty reconciling blanket data collection with rights to privacy and probable cause.
  • Courts have traditionally sided with the executive on national security but blanket searches may shift this balance.

• Metadata Precedents:

  • Surowiecki notes a Supreme Court case (Smith v. Maryland) trusting metadata collection for individuals but questions if mass data gathering changes its constitutionality.

Transparency, Technology Firms, and Public Trust (09:37 – 10:44)

• Company Involvement:
  • There’s debate over whether tech giants permit government “direct access” or only comply with specific court orders—lack of transparency leaves the truth unclear.
  • Raises questions for users about what they share online and potential repercussions for tech companies.

The Paradox of Visibility and Privacy in American Culture (10:44 – 11:58)

• Jill Lepore's Observation:

  • Americans are “obsessed with being seen, but also with being hidden.”
  • Self-exposure on social media contrasts with demands for privacy protection.
  • Wickenden quotes Lepore:

    “We live in a world in which people chronicle their lives on Facebook while demanding the latest and best from a species of cryptography known as privacy protection…” (11:08)

• Public/Private Confusion:

  • Surowiecki argues much of what we believe to be private is actually public or “to some degree it’s theirs as well.” (11:31)
  • Calls for a needed debate about balancing privacy and security.

Secrecy, Democracy, and the Obama Administration (11:58 – 14:35)

• Secrecy in Government:

  • Mayer invokes Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s critique that secrecy is anti-democratic and breeds poor decision-making.
  • Secrecy is alluring to power because it avoids scrutiny.
  • Mayer:

    “Secrecy in itself can be a very pernicious thing for democracy, but it's also a very seductive thing for people in power because they don't want to be criticized anyway.” (12:25)

• Obama’s Transparency Record and Leak Prosecution:

  • Obama campaigned on transparency, but has aggressively prosecuted leaks—more than all prior administrations combined.
  • The Espionage Act has recast leakers and journalists as potential spies or conspirators.
  • Mayer:

    “It's been surprising to see that the Obama administration in particular has used the Espionage Act, I think now five or... six times against leakers. I mean, that's more than every other administration combined.” (14:18)

• The Case of Snowden:

  • Raises complex First Amendment and intent questions—spy versus dissenter distinction.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jane Mayer on the Power of Metadata:

  “You can derive an incredible amount of very private information from looking just at the pattern of who somebody calls and when and how.” (07:25)

• James Surowiecki on Public-Private Boundaries:

  “A lot of what we think we're doing in private, we're actually doing to some degree in public.” (11:30)

• Jane Mayer on Secrecy and Democracy:

  “The more sort of totalitarian a regime is, the more secret it is... Secrecy in itself can be a very pernicious thing for democracy, but it's also a very seductive thing for people in power because they don't want to be criticized.” (12:03)

• Jane Mayer on the Change in Leak Prosecution:

  “The Espionage act has been used to prosecute leakers, which means that the people who leak information are being categorized as basically spies who are trying to harm America.” (13:16)

---

Key Timestamps

| Segment | Time | |------------------------------------------------|-----------| | Snowden’s Disclosures and Their Significance | 01:14–03:35 | | Public and Political Reaction | 03:35–05:00 | | Tension Between Privacy and Security | 05:00–06:50 | | Government Effectiveness vs. Invasiveness | 06:50–08:17 | | Legal and Constitutional Perspectives | 08:17–09:37 | | Transparency & Tech Companies’ Role | 09:37–10:44 | | Paradox of Culture: Visibility vs. Privacy | 10:44–11:58 | | Secrecy, Democracy, and Leak Prosecution | 11:58–14:35 |

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is intellectually rigorous, analytical, and urgent, with a balanced tone that weighs both the necessity and dangers of government surveillance. Mayer and Surowiecki engage thoughtfully, occasionally referencing historical and legal precedents while acknowledging technological realities. There is underlying skepticism about both government transparency and the evolving social compact around privacy.

---

For listeners who missed the episode:
This conversation dissects the complex interplay of privacy, technology, and government power—capturing the uncertainty, debate, and public concern ignited by the first major NSA leaks of the Snowden era.

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year. Skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com newyorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and editors about politics. It's Thursday, June 13th. I'm Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of the New Yorker. This week everybody was consumed by Edward Snowden's disclosures that the NSA routinely collect on the phone calls of millions of Americans, along with the emails and files of foreign targets.

[Podcast Announcer]

I, sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president. If I had a personal email that.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Was Snowden, a former employee of the government contractor Booz Allen, in a video that was released earlier this week by the Guardian. Jane Mayer and James Surowiecki are here today to talk about the changes the country has undergone since 9 11. We're when it comes to guarding government secrets and protecting personal privacy, Jane what did Snowden reveal that we didn't already know?

[Jane Mayer]

Well, he let it be known publicly that there are blanket and routine searches collecting Americans phone calls. The data about who they call, when they call, how long they call for what numbers. Also that the major Internet companies own allow the government to roam through email and the data concerning searches and private emails.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

But didn't we really know that companies, as well as the government have been able to collect extremely detailed information about us through our cell phones, the Internet for a long time now?

[Jane Mayer]

Well, we sort of did and we didn't. There have been earlier stories about warrantless wiretapping. Obviously, the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing that during the Bush years. But then there was the supposition that that program was reshaped in order to not violate people's constitutional rights to privacy by Congress. And so it hasn't been clear that there have been these kinds of completely routine blanket searches. I think people understood that the capacity is there, but I think they had thought that it was a rare thing, not a routine thing, and not that these records were necessarily being kept as they are apparently for five years. I think everyone knew that there were foreign calls that were easily being watched before, but I don't think people understood completely that every single American phone call was part of this dragnet.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Jim, there have been two extreme reactions to Snowden's actions, and just to cite a couple of examples, House Speaker John Boehner calls him a traitor. Ron Paul thinks he did the country a service. Why is the debate so polarized?

[James Surowiecki]

To me, in a way, the most interesting thing is, you know, there have been a couple of polls that have come out in the last couple days, one from Gallup, and I think another one from Time Time, for instance, showed that a majority of Americans are happy that or whatever however they phrased it, that Snowden did what he did, but a majority or maybe a plurality nonetheless think that he should be prosecuted for what he did.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And but let me just interrupt for 2 secs, because the polls also show that the American public isn't nearly as alarmed about the idea of the government collecting massive amounts of data as some of those who have entered in the debate this week are.

[Jane Mayer]

I think it also, but it depends how you ask the question. There's a CBS News poll that shows that 38% only support the idea that ordinary Americans phone calls would be collected by the government. That's only 38% and 58% oppose it. You know, when you use a word like ordinary Americans, then people begin to identify with it as, oh, you mean me, and they're not necessarily comfortable with it.

[James Surowiecki]

I think what this debate reflects is to make the kind of obvious point is the tension that really exists at the moment between our desire for privacy and obviously this issue of security. But I think the bigger issue is the way in which technology has really changed a lot of the dynamics, in a way, the scale of data collection and the ability of both companies and now the government to collect and hold enormous amounts of data on a routine basis. That's really a pretty new thing. And I think that, you know, this raises a whole host of very complicated issues that I think we haven't totally figured out how we feel about. I mean, to me, you know, one of the things that's interesting about it is obviously we know that the companies themselves have enormous amounts of data about us and are collecting it and using it oftentimes in automated, but nonetheless very sophisticated ways. Gmail being the classic example. Right. I mean, Google automatically and automatedly scans the contents of your emails and uses that as a way to generate advertising that in theory, is targeted specifically to you. So we know that this kind of stuff is going on. I think in general, we prefer maybe not to think about what it might actually mean. But I do think that the era of big data, which is really what we're talking about, I think, has just created a whole host of issues that we haven't fully, really kind of thought through how we feel about.

[Jane Mayer]

I agree with that. But I would say that there's a difference that people maybe are just beginning to focus on between commercial entities collecting information about you, where there's sort of an implied consent, and the government collecting information on you without your consent or knowledge. And also, you know, one of the differences is the government can prosecute you. It can use this information to go after you for criminal purposes, and it has a very different power than a company collecting this information.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

But Jane Obama defends this, the government surveillance programs, and argues essentially that the government would be remiss if it didn't use data mining to uncover terrorist plots, which we are told it has done a number of times.

[Jane Mayer]

Right. And we had testimony from the head of the National Security Agency who said that dozens of plots had been foiled by this. And the use of metadata, which is what we're talking about, has supposedly cut down the amount of time that the U.S. marshals Service says is average for finding a suspect, down from something like 15 or 20 days down to a couple days. So, I mean, it's a hugely useful tool for law enforcement, but it's also invasive in ways that people can barely fathom. You can derive an incredible amount of very private information from looking just at the pattern of who somebody calls and when and how. If you stand back a little bit you can see things like people's health problems from who they call in terms of doctors. You can see financial issues depending on who they're calling. You can find out business information. You can find out plenty of political information, especially if they're opponents and they're meeting together with other opponents. You can even find out things about people's romances because they can track these cell phones and get a sense of where someone is at night. So it can be really invasive. It's a really double edged sword.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And the ACLU filed suit this week challenging the constitutionality of collecting this domestic phone metadata. How do you think that's going to shake out?

[Jane Mayer]

I think it's going to be really interesting. I mean, generally the courts are very deferential to the executive branch on issues having to do with national security. So it would take an unusual court to side with the ACLU maybe on this. But a very important part of our Bill of Rights is the right to privacy and not to be searched without some kind of probable cause. And when you're talking about blanket searches where everybody, not individually, but just everybody, the whole class of American citizens, are routinely searched, it is difficult to balance it out with the notion of probable cause.

[James Surowiecki]

The other dimension of this, from a legal point of view, is that you don't need a warrant in order to get metadata. So Smith v. Maryland, which was a case in the late 70s, basically the Supreme Court said it was constitutional for cops to basically get metadata from suspect's home without a warrant. But obviously that was an individual suspect. The problem is when it just becomes a massive everyone essentially, and this data is being stored, does that change the constitutional nature of the question?

[Jane Mayer]

And it may.

[James Surowiecki]

And the other thing I would say is from the company's perspective, there's some real question about how much access the government is actually getting. I mean, the original Washington Post story based on Snowden's revelation said that the government essentially had kind of direct access to the company's. And the idea was that the government just basically could go into Google servers and essentially just roam around and figure out whatever it wanted to find out. The companies say that's not true, that actually it's always in response to a direct court order and that they essentially upload the data to a remote server and then the government can access it. The problem, of course, is we don't know whether or not this is true. The companies actually are limited in what they can say. So there really is some question about how much access the government actually has to these things. But I think it raises real issues for people going forward about how much they want to use these things. I mean, how much do you want to put on Facebook if there's a potential that the government is basically searching through them on a regular basis? And so I think that's going to be one of the interesting consequences from a business perspective is to see how many ramifications this actually has for these firms.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And all of this raises a really interesting point that Jill Lepore actually is writing about this week and that everyone will see in a piece in the forthcoming issue of the magazine next week. She points out that we want to have it both ways in our culture, that we're obsessed with being seen, but also with being hidden. And that, as she puts it, we live in a world in which people chronicle their lives on Facebook while demanding the latest and best from a species of cryptography known as privacy protection, and register for accounts on Twitter using a password, a cipher of numbers and letters, so that no one can violate the selves they've contrived to expose. I just wonder what you both think about that, that we have helped to create this culture that we are now frightened of.

[James Surowiecki]

For me, it really is this issue that a lot of what we think we're doing in private, we're actually doing to some degree in public. You know, when you make a phone call, you're using Verizon's lines, basically. And, you know, when you send an email, you're using some company's servers, and to some degree it's yours, but to some degree it's theirs as well. And so that, I think, is what this is actually making quite clear. You know, Obama has said he welcomes debate about the balance between privacy and security. And, you know, we should have that debate.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Jane.

[Jane Mayer]

Politically, secrecy, it's in many ways anathema to democracy. The more sort of totalitarian a regime is, the more secret it is. A number of years ago, former US Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a fantastic book about secrecy, in which he basically said that it almost inevitably leads to bad decisions being made. People who make decisions behind closed doors are not exposed to competition of ideas. They get dug in and defend things. Secrecy in itself can be a very pernicious thing for democracy, but it's also a very seductive thing for people in power because they don't want to be criticized anyway. I think that it's important for the public to push back against the natural tendency of people in power to want to try to keep them from prying.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

You've been tough on Obama on exactly this issue, on him claiming that he was going to have a more transparent administration than the last one and then failing to do so. And him being the most aggressive prosecutor of leaks in recent American history.

[Jane Mayer]

Well, it's very interesting what happens to people in power of both parties. The threat of terrorism looms really large and changes the equation in a lot of ways. And the people who are, you know, fighting terrorists, I think, have an ability to sort of get the government to buy in from their perspective. A lot of what's changed increasingly under Obama is that the Espionage act has been used to prosecute leakers, which means that the people who leak information are being categorized as basically spies who are trying to harm America. And concomitantly, the reporters, too, have been described as co conspirators, which means the act of gathering that news could be construed as criminal in the eyes of the Justice Department. And that is where it gets very, very touchy. It'll be interesting to see what they do with Snowden because, you know, do people regard him as a spy? Is he working for a foreign power? Is he trying to harm the United States, or is he a dissenter who is, in his own view, anyway, trying to help the country? It raises all kinds of First Amendment questions. And the question of intent according to the courts so far has been very important in this. It's been surprising to see that the Obama administration in particular has used the Espionage Act, I think now five or may, depending how you count it, six times against leakers. I mean, that's more than every other administration combined.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Okay, thank you very much. Jane Mayer and James Surowiecki are staff writers. This has been the political scene from the New Yorker. I'm Dorothy Wickenden.

[Podcast Announcer]

You can subscribe to this and other free New Yorker podcasts in the itunes store. The weekly audio edition of the magazine is available at. Subscribers can read the magazine [e-mail] and also with multimedia extras in the tablet and iPhone editions.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director. I'm Michael Kollori, Wired's director of consumer tech and Culture.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley is about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more interdependent. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.

[Jane Mayer]

Right.

[Katie Drummond]

So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin, Doge or Elon Musk. We will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Jane Mayer]

From prx.