It takes trust to balance security, privacy

Published: Monday, January 20, 2014 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, January 17, 2014 at 3:44 p.m.

I spent my childhood in simpler times. After school, we kids watched the original “Mickey Mouse Club,” then went to the community playground. Among the equipment were swingsets, sliding boards, monkey bars and seesaws.

These were single-person activities except for the seesaws. As I think back on it, the seesaws created some interesting dynamics among playmates. Sometimes it was a gentle exercise, with kids pushing up gently to send the other person down, and back and forth. Then there was what I would now call combat seesaw — the person on the down end would push up very hard, making the other kid hit the ground really hard.

Another whole dynamic developed when kids of unequal size played on the seesaw. Almost by unspoken agreement, the game changed to trying to strike a balance. Using some intuitive sense of the physics of it, the kids would scoot around, trying to equalize the impact of their different weights, and thus balance the board. Lighter kids knew to move to the far end of the seesaw and the bigger kids moved toward the center. Implicit in achieving and maintaining that balance was an inherent trust between the two partners.

In some cosmic sense, this game of seesaw was a microcosm of the world in which these kids would grow up, reflecting the need for a trusted balance in every phase of society.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. But that freedom is countered by laws prohibiting certain language, such as yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Our cars can exceed 100 mph, but we are restricted to 70 mph in most places. People are free to smoke, but there are restraints that protect the rights of nonsmokers.

I think most reasonable people understand the need to balance extreme positions with tempering elements — to create a safer environment, protect people or keep society generally civil.

I’ve been thinking about all this in relation to Edward Snowden and the National Security Agency leaks. He resurfaced recently, granting an interview with The Washington Post’s Barton Gellman (Dec. 23, 2013).

Using my seesaw analogy, I think Snowden saw the government as the big kid (providing security) on one end, and himself as the smaller kid (protecting privacy) on the other end. He did what he thought was necessary to bring balance between the two. But I see a big problem.

In a previous life (pre-retirement), I worked with classified military communications systems. For many years, I held a security clearance higher than top secret. To get that clearance, I was investigated and briefed on the sensitivity of the material I would have access to, and I signed documents acknowledging the government’s trust in me and agreeing to safeguard the information I would see.

Snowden went through a similar process. He signed the Standard Form (SF) 312, which says in part: “I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.” And, “I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.” (See the complete form at

What part of this was unclear to him?

Quoting from the Post interview, “Snowden noted matter-of-factly that Standard Form 312, the classified-information nondisclosure agreement, is a civil contract. He signed it, but he pledged his fealty elsewhere. ‘The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy,’ he said.”

He is correct. The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy. But signing the SF 312 is.

Our government entrusted Snowden with its secrets, and Snowden betrayed that trust. Integrity and trustworthiness are among a person’s most valuable possessions. Once broken, they can never be restored to their original value.

Since that interview, several newspapers and individuals have called for some sort of pardon for Snowden, citing the uncovering of the surveillance and the robust conversation it started. In other words, the end justifies the means. So I guess if a bank robber uses the proceeds of his theft to feed hungry children, that makes the heist OK?

Others have made the comparison to Daniel Ellsberg and the disclosure of the Pentagon Papers. But there are major differences here.

Ellsberg did not flee and then, in interviews, praise repressive governments, as Snowden did (July 2013 speech). Ellsberg did not reveal information about current, ongoing operations. Ellsberg did not go to a foreign government, as Snowden did to Brazil, and offer to help it investigate an agency of his own country (Associated Press article, Dec. 17, 2013).

So what’s the bottom line here? I think it comes down to a few basic questions.

First, can we trust our government to use the data it collects to keep us safe? Next, is the data collection necessary? And finally, should Snowden be pardoned?

My answers are: Yes, I do trust my government. Yes, some level of data collection is needed in today’s world, where there are many who would do us harm. No, Snowden should not be pardoned.

At this point, I know two things: This is a story still being played out. And I would not trust Snowden to be on the other end of my seesaw, much less with anything else.

Dawn Kucera is a Hendersonville resident. She can be reached at


▲ Return to Top