The Mixed Legacy of Edward Snowden

(Attribution: www.nsa.gov)

2013 was quite a year for Edward Snowden. The former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor’s leaks of classified intelligence documents, beginning in The Guardian in June of that year, shed a bright light onto the federal government’s sprawling surveillance state, and in particular, the actions of the NSA .

The world learned that NSA monitored the phone usage patterns (known as metadata) of millions of Americans,by obtaining secret court orders which allowed them to collect customer data in bulk, directly from telecom firms like Verizon. Meanwhile, under the PRISM program, the NSA gained access (again through closed court orders) to the emails, Internet searches, and other online activities of millions of Web users across the globe, including an untold number of Americans. Additionally, Snowden revealed the  interception of data transfers between storage centers of Yahoo and Google, which allowed the agency to become privy to a variety of highly sensitive information.

Snowden also exposed critical information about American intelligence operations abroad. His leaks contained details around American efforts to hack email accounts of Iranian subjects of interest, as well as missions to gain access to computers and files of suspected Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Yemen and Africa. Snowden disclosed the details of close, widespread intelligence coordination between the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia, as well as efforts to learn more about Pakistan’s nuclear program, and information which indicated that nearly every phone call in the Bahamas and Afghanistan, is monitored by the NSA.

Speaking with the South China Morning Post in June 2013, Snowden announced that the NSA had engaged in hacking operations against Tsinghua University (one of mainland China’s top institutions of higher education), as well as the Hong Kong headquarters of Pacnet, a company whose fiber optic cables ensure Internet connectivity throughout Asia.

Perhaps even more controversial were the facts Snowden disseminated concerning American monitoring of allies. The world learned that the NSA had spied on computer networks of European Union offices in New York and Washington DC, and intercepted the telephone calls of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. Foreign embassies in the United States were also targets of American intelligence efforts, with more than 38 missions being monitored in some form. Many of the embassies surveilled were those of friendly nations like Greece, India and Mexico.

Snowden’s actions had a significant judicial and political impact. Just under two years after Snowden’s initial exposure of information, President Obama signed a bipartisan bill which Congress drafted, to reform metadata collection by the NSA, while a federal appeals court panel in New York found that the NSA’s telephone metadata collection program was not legally authorized (although another appeals court panel, based in Washington DC, declined to reach the same conclusions). President Obama himself acknowledged Snowden’s impact, admitting that, despite his criticism of Snowden’s actions, the debate it prompted would “make us stronger.”

Snowden’s work has also impacted the public’s understanding of privacy. Polling from Pew Research Center found that 80% of those surveyed believed that Americans should be “concerned about the government’s monitoring of phone calls and Internet communications,” while more than 90% believed that consumers have lost control over how their personal information is “collected and used by companies.” At the same time, Snowden’s actions have been rather polarizing, with public opinion sharply divided around whether his disclosures, and eventual defection to Russia, were appropriate.

American technology firms have also been affected. Many foreign companies have raised concerns that due to the NSA’s data collection efforts, their information may not be safe in the hands of US-based firms like Microsoft, IBM and Google. As a result, cloud storage services, and other data management functions offered by American software companies, face significant competitive challenges. Technology consulting and research firm Forrester estimates that the US information technology business could lose as much as $180 billion in potential business, by 2016, due to such concerns.

In considering whether what Snowden did was correct, there is an important dichotomy to keep in mind. What Snowden exposed about the NSA’s actions, as directed towards Americans, was both laudable, and badly needed. However, his leaks about American surveillance activities abroad, was misguided, and somewhat blind to the realities of today’s geopolitical environment.

To understand why Snowden’s actions were, in part, an act of fealty to the Constitution, let’s examine the NSA’s metadata program.  As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted in it’s May 2015 ruling, which found the NSA’s collection of telephone metadata from Verizon, AT&T and other firms was not authorized by Congress (and thus illegal), a wide variety of personal information can be revealed here. By knowing with whom an individual makes and receives calls, the government can learn about that person’s relationship status, political and religious affiliations, and overall living patterns. What’s more, thanks to software advances, massive amounts of metadata can be collected and analyzed with relative ease.

Additionally, the PRISM program, which allowed the NSA to gain direct access to emails, Internet searches, and other data, from the servers of Microsoft, Google, and other technology behemoths, was a major breach of privacy. Through PRISM, the NSA gained access to emails, searches, and audio and video chats of millions of people across the globe. While the program was officially directed at foreign targets, with so-called “minimization” procedures in place to avoid spying on Americans, the data of American citizens could be “inadvertently” mined with no real consequences.What’s more, intelligence leaders will not reveal how many Americans were actually spied on during this process.

The standard required to authorize this type of surveillance was rather lax; the NSA merely had to have a “reasonable belief” that the target they were intentionally monitoring was a foreign national; if so, the door to a wider range of monitoring was open. This process could, repeated many times, touch many Americans who didn’t do anything wrong. While all of these acts were broadly authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), FISC is a rather opaque body, with minimal external oversight, and a propensity for approving nearly all surveillance requests by the NSA.

All of the judges who serve on FISC are selected solely by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and typically have the same professional background (current federal judges). In deciding whether to permit specific surveillance actions (such as the collection of telephone metadata from Verizon, or the operation of the PRISM program by the NSA), these judges only heard arguments from lawyers for the federal government. The court never has a chance to consider the views of those who advocate for the legal protections which the citizenry is entitled on. The outcomes of this review process have been remarkably favorable to the NSA’s ever-expanding surveillance operations: From 1999 to 2012, a staggering 99.7% of all FISC surveillance request were approved.

These facts, considered in whole, paint a rather troubling picture. We have the NSA collecting and analyzing a wide range of personal information on a daily basis, sweeping in untold numbers of Americans. These activities are being conducted with little in the way of real supervision from either the FISC court or Congress (in fact, there’s been much debate around whether James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress about the extent of the NSA’s operations). In a domestic sense, the NSA seems to be much like what Friedrich von Schrötter once said of Prussia, “not a country with an army, but an army with a country.”

Under these circumstances, Edward Snowden faced two choices. He could continue to collect his ample salary, and lived a life of relative tranquility. Or, he could uphold the oath he took while employed by the government, where he pledged to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Given what we know about the NSA’s actions (especially the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling), there is a strong argument that at least some of the NSA’s actions were not only illegal but unconstitutional. Under those circumstances, Snowden acted properly in making Americans aware of their government’s conduct. If we accept his claims, which have been at least partially corroborated, that he repeatedly voiced his concerns to officials within the NSA, prior to leaking documents, then those actions appear even more justified, as Snowden had seemingly few internal options to ensure NSA compliance with the Constitution.

The problem is, Mr. Snowden didn’t just disseminate information about metadata collection of phone calls involving Americans living in Portland, or reveal how PRISM could lead to the NSA’s monitoring of the emails of innocent residents of Toledo. Rather, he allowed the entire world to learn crucial details about how America conducts it’s foreign and national security policy, particularly in matters which have minimal direct bearing on the rights of Americans themselves.

As noted earlier, Snowden made public information about methods through which the CIA and NSA monitor and target suspected terrorists, as well as their operations to spy on foreign nuclear programs. He leaked details surrounding American hacking efforts which targeted Chinese universities, and informed the entire world that the US government listens to communications emanating from the embassies of it’s friends.

While many Americans may deplore these actions, can we truly say that the constitutional rights of Americans are actually violated through hacking into the computer or private network of a valued terrorist target in northwest Pakistan, or efforts to listen to conversations by Mexican or Indian diplomats based in Washington DC? Even the use of drone strikes abroad, despite real questions about their effectiveness, not to mention civilian casualties, only very rarely target American citizens, and thus don’t directly implicate the legal protections every American is supposed to enjoy.

So, why did Snowden chose to expose these facts? His first public interview, published by The Guardian in June 2013, sheds light on his motives. In this conversation, Snowden stated that he was “..willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building... I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in.” Snowden argued that the NSA’s actions were ultimately an “existential threat to democracy.”

Snowden followed up on these comments in a December 2013 interview with the Washington Post, where he set forward the idea that individuals should enjoy a basic right to privacy, and freedom from surveillance, whether or not they were American: “I don’t care whether you’re the pope or Osama bin Laden....As long as there’s an individualized, articulable, probable cause for targeting these people as legitimate foreign intelligence, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s imposing a ridiculous burden by asking for probable cause.” Snowden also indicated displeasure at the NSA’s tapping of the cell phone of Angela Merkel and other leaders of friendly nations, noting that  “It’s the deception of the government that’s revealed...you just lied to the entire country, in front of Congress.”

Based on these statements, it seems clear that Snowden believes people across the globe, American or not, should be largely free from intrusive surveillance.Under this framework, the NSA’s actions, in the absence of compelling justifications (i.e. probable cause), are not permissible

In an ideal world, Snowden’s philosophy would be workable, and there would be no reason for the NSA to engage in some of the actions which we’ve seen over the past several years. Unfortunately, today’s reality is far different. In 2015 alone, Americans have been victimized by several large-scale hacker attacks, including a breach at JP Morgan which jeopardized the personal information of 83 million customers, as well as an attack on the IRS, which let criminals to access the tax returns of more than 100,000 households.

We are now faced with the specter of militant organizations engaging in cyber warfare, as seen with an attack by ISIS, which revealed the contact information of American military personnel. Russia and China have also committed major acts of online theft against the data and intellectual property of American companies.

Meanwhile ISIS controls large swaths of criteria in Iraq and Syria, and has recruited thousands of fighters from around the globe, including the United States and Europe. American citizens have participated in suicide bombings in Somalia, Iraq, and Syria, conducted critical reconnaissance for the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, and hatched serious plots to conduct suicide bombings on subways and landmarks in New York City. We haven’t even touched on the very real threat of terrorist organizations acquiring nuclear or chemical weapons.

In this precarious security environment, Snowden’s wish to extend rigorous privacy protections to every person on the planet, American or not, simply isn’t realistic. Requiring the NSA to find probable cause, in order to read the emails of possible hackers in Beijing, monitor the Whatsapp chats of suspected militants in Sana’a, or listen to phone conversations of weapons smugglers in Khartoum, would be harmful to intelligence-gathering efforts.

The NSA must be able to mount a comprehensive, proactive defense of American security. Often, that means allowing one piece of intelligence to lead to another, eventually resulting in the sorts of big breaks which prevent and punish deadly acts of violence. The search for Osama bin Laden offers a good case study of how this works. As with so many human matters, information is often imperfect, and of uncertain initial value. Requiring that the NSA be able to show “individualized, articulable probable cause” might block them from casting a watchful eye towards someone who is of seemingly questionable, but ultimately considerable importance. 

Also, given the volume of data being gathered, and the speed at which surveillance events often move, demonstrating probable cause for each act of intelligence collection, would be logistically and legally daunting, slowing the pace of time-sensitive surveillance efforts.

Let’s remember that Osama bin Laden was eventually found by tracking his courier, in part through phone calls made by the courier’s relatives in Kuwait, to various phone numbers in Pakistan. Under Snowden’s formulation, would there be sufficient probable cause to cast such a wide net on a group of people who weren’t actually terrorists themselves, but whose relative might know one? Arguably not, since that isn’t necessarily “individualized” suspicion. As a result, the bin Laden operation, and other vital anti-terrorism missions, might have never been successfully completed.

Of course, listening in on an Al Qaeda operative’s cousin in Kuwait, is probably not nearly so troubling for many Americans as monitoring the phone calls of the German chancellor, or the Greek ambassador to the US. While these actions make us understandably squeamish, it is important to consider that the interests of America and her allies don’t always fully align, and that allies spying on each other is a longstanding practice, across the globe. The relatively muted reaction of some of America's friends in Europe makes this clear.

Taken as a whole, Snowden’s view of foreign intelligence operations, and more generally, our nation’s actions abroad, appears rather naive. It does not appear to take into account the threat landscape that the nation faces, or the significant logistical challenges posed by the universal application of probable cause.

What’s more, his actions pose a real threat to American spying efforts. Both the former director of the NSA, as well as an independent research report from the Henry Jackson Society, have claimed that Snowden’s efforts harmed American intelligence-gathering and anti-terrorism efforts. Sources within the British government have also asserted that the UK was forced to scale back spying operations in Russia and China, due to Snowden’s leaks.

While these claims must be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, given the possible biases and of those making such claims, from an intuitive perspective, it makes some sense. It isn’t hard to understand how broadcasting America’s spying practices to the entire world, might put hostile actors or states on guard, making the collection of intelligence more difficult.

Opposition to Snowden’s leaks of foreign intelligence practices, is not an endorsement of blanket secrecy around American policies abroad. Our citizenry should be made aware of the actions which the government takes in their name, as that is the only means to ensure that our actions reflect our values, and that abuses are prevented.

Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971, demonstrating that the Johnson administration had lied to not only the public, but also Congress, about the expansion of American involvement in Vietnam. His actions were justified, because his leaks implicated matters of military policy (the US’ secret bombing Cambodia) which were of clear concern for the many Americans whose children were fighting in Southeast Asia. When the government engages in illegal or immoral actions, as was the case with the Iran-Contra affair, the backing death squads in Latin America, or the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, it is vital for Americans to know what’s happening.

However, listening to the phone or email conversations of foreign nationals, or their leaders, is hardly an instance of corruption, abuse, torture or murder. More than anything, these are tactics for accomplishing a broader goal (protection of American security interests). As such, the NSA and other agencies must be more accountable to Congress (which must exercise greater scrutiny), in terms of ensuring that their actions abroad are in compliance with the letter and spirit of American laws and values. Clearly, that hasn’t been the case in recent years. As a result, real reforms are needed. However, demanding complete transparency, probable cause for foreign surveillance, and revealing methods of spying abroad, is both unrealistic and ridiculous.

As the years pass, the tides of history will continue to color our assessment of what Edward Snowden did. At this time, however, there is a clear split between Snowden’s revelations around the NSA’s conduct at home, where he acted in defense of the Constitution, and what he exposed about the NSA’s conduct abroad, which was ultimately wrong.

A Tribute To The Internet

June 2008. 84 William Street, New York, New York. I’m standing in front of a dorm room mirror, unable to quite figure it out. Is that the right loop? Which way do I put it through? No, that’s not quite it. Oh boy. This can’t be that hard? Well apparently, it is.

Now I’m stressed. I have to be in court at 930 AM, to watch the supervising attorney at my summer internship participate in a court hearing, and “business casual” just isn’t going to cut it in court. After about three to four minutes of this restless internal monologue, I pause, with a sketchy solution in mind. What if I look it up on Google? I fire up my laptop. “How to tie a tie.” A few explanations appear. But, come on. Show me, don’t tell me!

YouTube it is. After opening three or four more videos, I find the one that will greatly simplify my life, forever. Try it once. Hmm, that’s not it.. Two more times, and then another. Better and better. And, before I knew it, I was tying a tie. Success! This wouldn’t have been possible without YouTube.

As I examine my own experiences, and observe the world around us, I can’t help but marvel at how much good the Internet has brought to our lives. I believe it’s important that we take stock how the Web has transformed significant parts of our existence, so that we may continue to grow, expand and improve what the Internet has to offer.

YouTube: To be sure, YouTube is saturated with content that is of limited practical value, ranging from cat videos to ridiculous daredevil stunts to useless political rants. I, like most of us, enjoy such programming on occasion, and have certainly burned more than a little bit of free time watching it. Yet, in the midst of all of this chaff, there is plenty of wheat for us to separate; videos that makes YouTube truly a tool worth having in our lives.

First, it is chock full of educational content for everyday use, which means that you can learn about pretty much anything under the sun. In addition to a multitude of tie-tying techniques, YouTube offers some fantastic (and simple to follow, even for a cooking neophyte) demonstrative recipes for preparing potato gnocchi (a dish I can’t live without), changing a flat tire (so you’ll still be OK when your iPhone dies, and you can’t reach AAA), to how to form a limited liability corporation (although obtaining formal legal advice can still be a good idea). YouTube is filled with capable people, who want to share what they know, with the world around them.

This platform is also a powerful supplemental tool for academic instruction. We should remember that Khan Academy got it’s real start when founder Sal Khan, who was tutoring his younger cousin, began posting his instructional videos to YouTube, and drew the attention of a wider audience. Many universities now offer a variety of coursework online, such that, over the course of an afternoon at a coffee shop, you can listen to microeconomics lectures from professors at MIT, learn about politics from academics at UCLA (my alma matter), and ponder the power of calculus with an instructor at Stanford. If we want to push our knowledge boundaries, and can build the required motivation, YouTube can certainly help to facilitate that journey.

Something which is less commonly noted, but just as relevant, is the potential for YouTube to uplift us. Thanks to the ease with which people can splice together various fragments of audio and video, we have been treated to a variety of motivational videos, which often pair powerful speeches of personal empowerment , with intense scenes from movies, or vigorous athletic competition. I have enjoyed watching these pieces before a big day at work, or during a moment when I felt I wasn’t performing at the level I should. And, more often than not, I came away feeling empowered.

YouTube also offers clips from a variety of speakers who bring great depth and clarity to life, ranging from Randy Pausch, author of The Last Lecture, to Steve Jobs, Simon Sinek, and many other thought leaders across a range of fields. From their lessons, we can increase our drive and determination, and also acquire some of the knowledge and attitude needed to push forward to our dreams, from those who have actually lived a life of achievement.

Perhaps most importantly of all, YouTube, at it’s core, is creating a repository of the world’s memories, experiences, thoughts and knowledge. Classic moments in cinema, television and music, along with some of the most important social, cultural, intellectual and political events in human history, are preserved on YouTube, for the entire world to see, feel and hear. In a sense, nothing will ever really be “forgotten.” YouTube offers us a chance to preserve much of that which is most important to us, and ensure that it lives on for millennia to come.

What’s more, every single human is, in a sense, capable of participating in this task. There’s not some stern arbiter deciding what is important or insignificant, or telling anyone which moments ought to be preserved, while others are tossed into the wastebin of time. Each of us chooses what matters, whether collective or personal in nature, and can create a representative YouTube clip, ensuring that it stays online forever.

If many people agree with our choice, this video will end up with lots of views and user engagement; if not, that isn’t a loss either. You choose what to put out there, and no one can really stop you. YouTube is allowing for a democratized approach to the work of defining time, history, meaning, and culture. That can be incredibly empowering.

Google: The most common response to any question or inquiry these days seems to be “Just Google It.” This tells us much about the power of Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s creation. Google has inched closer to perfecting the work that Jerry Yang and and David Filo began with Yahoo in 1995, of organizing the world’s information in an easily accessible manner.

As a thought exercise, try to imagine living a week of your daily life without being able to search on Google. It’s hard, isn’t it? Google leads us to answers about everything from the best lunch specials in our neighborhood, to how long it will take to reach a scenic hiking trail, and the intricacies of cell division, calculus and the Watergate scandal. Really, it makes the world around us more comprehensible. It is vital to consider just how critical such a function really is.

Beyond the very obvious utility of such a tool, there’s a deeper power to Google; it reduces information asymmetry, and helps to level the playing field in a variety of matters. Daniel Pink offers an interesting example of this in To Sell is Human. He cites two car dealerships, one of which sells used cars, and implements a more traditional sales method, taking advantage of the longstanding knowledge gap between buyer and seller. The other dealership understands that in the Internet era, customers have far more awareness of the product they are purchasing, and so, the buying process becomes more collaborative, with the purchaser and seller working together to ensure a smooth transaction.

The second dealership is far busier and more financially successful, because it has taken the realities of the digital era into account, and adjusted it’s business strategy accordingly. While Pink doesn’t attribute this shift to Google specifically (rather, the Web more broadly), it is clear that Google is the means by which this sort of information becomes accessible to the public, and further empowers the average consumer.

Google has bridged this type of gap in areas far beyond car sales, or even retail transactions more broadly. Before a doctor’s visit, or beginning the use of a new medication, patients can access an array of medical information, while learning more about a particular doctor’s background and treatment approach. While there is certainly a risk of obtaining incorrect information online, there is also a tremendous opportunity to enter the medical process armed with greater knowledge, and thus handle one’s medical treatment more effectively.

The same is true in legal and financial matters, which has shifted the power of gatekeepers like lawyers, bankers and financial advisors, requiring them to connect with those they serve in more of a team fashion, as not only a counselor but also a partner of sorts, rather than as some distant fountain of wisdom. It also requires these professionals to offer better, more cost-effective services, or lose out to those who can.

Thanks to this stream of new information, there is great potential for people to not only know and learn more about a multitude of topics, but also make more informed decisions, and take greater control of their lives. We can thank Google for this shift.

Facebook: The social network born in Mark Zuckerberg’s Harvard dorm room has had a seismic impact. Much of Facebook’s billion plus users make use of the site primarily to share photos, check-ins to various places of interest, and life events of some (let’s be honest, quite often, rather limited) personal significance. 

Facebook does allow us, in some sense, to keep track of and stay in touch with people whom we know with various degrees of familiarity, and to stay current on a heavily curated version of their lives. Whether Facebook actually brings us any closer to others remains unclear at best, but it does at least offer us more frequent glimpses into some version of our contact’s lives.

Yet, the connectivity which Facebook offers does carry some tangible benefits. For one, it allows us to pool the knowledge of an entire network of people, whom we have at least some degree of trust in. Over the past several years, I’ve made requests of my Facebook network, which has helped me find an attorney for a friend who was dealing with an unfamiliar legal matter, obtain suggestions on supplemental career resources for myself, and of course, find delicious restaurants to check out in both New York and Los Angeles.

While I could obtain all of this information by searching online, or reaching out to individual friends who might be able to assist, being able to quickly seek insights from those whom I know and trust in some capacity, and whom I am confident have some useful knowledge of a particular topic, is considerably more convenient and useful.

I have also seen other people use Facebook in even more impactful ways. Several friends have raised money for deeply meaningful causes, such as cancer research or undeserved public schools, and used Facebook to solicit many sponsors. I’ve seen other folks reach out for leads for new job opportunities, while some people have sought comfort during a difficult time, and found real (often, offline) support from friends, family, and even those whom they don’t know as well, but have perhaps been there before.

At a more global level, there are even greater examples of how Facebook can make use of broader social networks to create positive change. The New York-based photoblog Humans of New York, which built a massive following in large part thanks to Facebook, recently raised $1 million for an underprivileged Brooklyn school which it had profiled. Perhaps most memorably, in 2014, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge raised more than $100 million in research funding for the disease, through it’s memorable Facebook video campaign.

At it’s best, Facebook can leverage the inherent human desire to help others, by sharing a range of knowledge, and offering friendship and support, in ways both large and small, and to those closest to us, as well as strangers whom we have never met. Through such acts, we are all at least a little better off. Facebook deserves credit for making this possible.

Twitter: Twitter does several things which are fundamentally important. For one, just as with YouTube videos, it gives us each a voice, to be heard by an audience that spans much of the world. If you have something to contribute to the human conversation, all you have to do is share it in a Tweet, or perhaps a series of Tweets, or even post it in a blog, and Tweet that link, perhaps with relevant hashtags attached.

In time, if this Tweet resonates with the broader online community, people follow you, or perhaps retweet your comments, spreading your message to a wider audience. On the other hand, if they stridently disagree with your stance, they can initiate a conversation on Twitter (which often degenerates into insults, shouting matches, and gross distortions, but nonetheless, does allow people to battle in the arena of ideas, often with those whom they’ve never met). Twitter is, at it’s core, a global conversation, which captures the power each of us has, to spread our voices out to the mass of humanity all around us.

There’s something else that Twitter does, which even the most skilled journalists never could: be present just about everywhere, all the time. From the Superbowl to the European refugee crisis to protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and a million places hidden in between, Twitter allows us to obtain live coverage and insights of virtually any event, from those who are either participating in or witnessing it occur, whether or not reporters are present to cover it.

One can directly hear the thoughts of a student or shopkeeper who is watching a political revolution unfold in his or her hometown, and is perhaps a member of one faction or another, which are involved in what is occurring. Twitter thus removes the filters and biases imposed by journalists and news organizations, while offering a voice to those who might not otherwise be heard. Of course, one must maintain a healthy degree of skepticism towards any source of information, on Twitter or elsewhere, and keep in mind that each may have their own biases or lack of credibility (of course, the same is true of virtually all media, including mainstream news organizations).

But still, Twitter creates a richer, more varied human conversation, bringing us coverage and insights that would otherwise remain in the dark. What’s more, with Twitpic and Periscope, we can view photos, and watch live video, of events as they unfold, and thus further broaden our understanding of human and natural events. Twitter has opened a new window into the world, one through which each of us can both consume and contribute to the world at large, and again, choose what we believe to be most important. For that, Twitter is truly a transformative Web platform.

The Best Of The Rest: To be sure, there are far more than just four impactful sites on the Internet. Beyond just video, search and social, the Internet allows mankind to share thoughts and knowledge about a variety of topics (from crowdsourcing business reviews on Yelp, to acquiring a range of new knowledge online through Skillshare, Udemy and so many other platforms), disseminate quirky humorous content (one of my favorite sites for this is XKCD, as well as the biting satire of The Onion), create powerful stories and essays on Blogger and Medium, share images of this big, beautiful existence we are living, through a million different angles and lenses, on Instagram, while we raise money for projects and causes through Kickstarter and other funding platforms, and of course, engage with just about every matter of any possible significance, through an innumerable number of blogs and forums. And that’s just scratching the surface. The Internet allows each of us to laugh, cry, learn, grow, support, and just as importantly, share our unique gifts and perspective with the world around us.

Why Must We Appreciate The Internet?

Facebook, Google, and YouTube, as well as many other Internet firms, are multi billion dollar entities, which can attract talented employees from around the globe, and develop products which have a lasting impact on the world around us. What’s more, many of us who enjoy creating content and posting it online, or like to build new web platforms, would do so even for a minimal audience, because we love to share our varied perspectives with the world (I’d certainly continue writing and sharing it on online, even if few people read what I have to say). So, why am I pausing to sing the praises of the World Wide Web?

Because only by taking time to really consider the opportunity which the Web offers mankind as a whole, can we continue to grow, innovate and improve what is offered online. If we take the Internet for granted, and pretend that Google, YouTube, Khan Academy, and a million other websites always existed, then we will lose sight of what life would be like without these tools, and how much effort went into making them possible.

We might forget that the only means through which the human experience improves, in any realm, is through an urge, which eventually becomes a burning desire, to make things just a little easier, slightly faster, somewhat more interesting, just a tad more useful. The history of the Internet is that of humanity as a whole: A narrative of experimentation, creation, and growth, every step of which was pushed forward by a desire to improve our shared condition.

After all, Google’s search engine was born out of a wish to better curate the world’s information, and look at where it has led us today. The same is true of so many other Internet domains, which stem from a need to bring something different to our planet. When it comes to the Web, if we envision it, we (or someone among us), can probably create it, and perhaps change lives in the process.

So the question now is: what do we want the Web to accomplish next? Do we hope to make basic medical treatment more accessible in cities, states and nations with a lack of physicians? Or perhaps demystify the legal system, in America and abroad, to ensure that people know and can better assert their rights? Or maybe would we like to find an improved method for businesses to find the talent they need to grow? What if we can find ways to use the Internet to better monitor and fight human rights violations? Or maybe it’s time to really transform the middle school math learning experience, once and for all?

Whatever the goal is, when one considers where the Internet has taken us over the past few decades, we are reminded that making each of these dreams a reality is, with the proper actions, very much possible. After all, it’s been done before, with a thousand other once-imaginary concepts that are realities in today’s Web.

So, here’s to the Internet, which has given me, you, and all of us, so very much. But yet, there is much more to be done. Ponder what the Web has become. Then, let’s think about what needs to come next . It’s time. Let’s get to work. As for me, I need to figure out the nuances of the bow tie. YouTube, give me a second. I’ll be right there.

How Political Contributions Limit Internet Access

Much has been written about the role of money in American national politics, especially after the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United. Sometimes overlooked in this debate, however, has been the ways in which political spending influences lawmaking at the state level, ultimately resulting in state polices which are favored by powerful corporate interests, but may not be in the best interests of the public as a whole. The battle over community broadband offers a troubling case study in how this happens.

Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled in favor of a petition filed by cities in North Carolina and Tennessee, and agreed to restrict the ability of state governments, to prevent these towns from offering their own Internet services (often known as community broadband) in certain areas.

The FCC’s action was prompted by the successful lobbying efforts of telecommunications firms, in North Carolina, Tennessee and elsewhere, to pass laws which limit the ability of municipalities to develop and expand community broadband networks, designed to serve local businesses and individuals.

Why would a city or town choose to get involved in providing Internet service? In some less populated, rural areas, Internet access is slow and rather limited, with private telecommunications firms (such as Charter Communications, AT&T and Comcast) demonstrating minimal interest in expanding and improving broadband capacity (likely because such ventures would not be profitable, given the relatively high costs involved in expanding such services to serve a fairly small population).

To bridge this market gap, some cities and towns have begun expanding community broadband, which individuals, families, and private businesses can pay to access (generally at a lower price than private telecom providers might have charged). Additionally, these localities have often sought to expand these services to neighboring towns and counties in need, so that they might increase overall revenue, and improve the financial viability of community broadband ventures.

Advocates of community broadband have often argued that high-speed broadband is a critical part of the personal lives of millions of Americans, necessary for everything from communicating with friends and family, to conducting a variety of commercial activities, and allowing primary school students to more easily complete their homework. They also cite to data suggesting that it can play an important role in attracting businesses to a city, and improving local economic growth, since firms across a variety of industries are reliant on rapid Internet connectivity.

Major telecom firms, and those wary of community broadband programs, take a more skeptical view. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson observed that the “idea of private capital competing with taxpayer-provided capital just feels inconsistent to us with what a free-market system looks like”, raising the specter of aggressive government encroachment into what has traditionally been the domain of for-profit (privately held or publicly traded) companies.

These fears might resonate even more since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which many opponents criticized as a “government takeover” of the healthcare market. To some, these trends suggest an ever-expanding state, which increasingly crowds out private investment.

Some critics of community broadband also fear that it might place taxpayer money at risk. They argue that government has neither the efficiency nor the expertise to successfully operate such networks, and that since these projects have access to funds from the government, they can charge less for a service than it costs (unlike private firms, which would be unable to survive with such a cost structure), leading to financial losses that will ultimately be absorbed by taxpayers.

Detractors of community broadband often cite to the example of Utopia, a troubled community broadband project in Utah, which racked up more than $350 million in debt, and had $146 million in negative assets. They also point to Solyndra, a solar panel company which received over $500 million in taxpayer loans before eventually going bankrupt, as an example of the pitfalls of government involvement with technology businesses that are normally founded by entrepreneurs and backed by venture capital funds.

A piece from the Center for Public Integrity details how telecom providers have fought efforts by municipalities to develop community broadband. Janice Bowling, a Republican state senator from Tullahoma, Tennessee, believed that many of her rural constituents would benefit from faster Internet access.

People living in more isolated parts of Bowling’s district often faced slow connection speeds, with major Internet service providers offering somewhat spotty access. Bowling thought that Tullahoma’s city government could help, by developing their own, speedier networks through which residents could get online quickly, and possibly attract outside businesses to set up shop in the area.

However, under a 1999 Tennessee law, municipalities which run their own Internet service networks are not allowed to provide online access outside of areas where they offer electrical service. This restriction was an impediment to Bowling’s hopes for community broadband in Tullahoma and surrounding areas. Bowling thus introduced a bill in the Tennessee Senate, seeking to amend existing legislation.

This proposal quickly met with determined resistance from the telecom industry. Representatives from AT&T and other firms aggressively pressed Republican members of the state legislature to table the bill, and threatened litigation if it were passed. Shortly afterwards, Bowling’s bill died in committee, and the existing barriers to community broadband remained in place.

Bowling’s dream of improved Internet access for her constituents in Tullahoma, would thus not become a reality. She admits she was surprised by the intensity of the efforts directed against this proposal, noting that “I had no idea the force that would come against this, because it’s just so reasonable and necessary.”

In Tennessee (and many other states), the telecom industry has spent considerable amounts on influencing politicians, and donating money to campaigns for public office. According to public disclosure reports, in recent years, AT&T has been one of the largest spenders on lobbying Tennessee’s legislature, with nearly $300,000 dedicated to such efforts in 2014. AT&T has also been a large-scale donor to state political campaigns in Tennessee, with nearly $370,000 given in 2014, nearly five times what was spent in 2000.

Thus, when AT&T went to battle against Bowling’s reforms, their efforts were backed merely by words, but also a deep war chest of political cash. AT&T’s spending is backed, to a lesser but still very substantial degree, by Comcast and other telecom firms.

In North Carolina, advocates of community broadband have faced many of the same challenges as in Tennessee. In 2009, the city of Wilson began offering a service called Greenlight, which allowed residents to purchase access to high speed Internet service. The service quickly gained traction, turning a profit by 2013 (like many private businesses, it was not initiallyprofitable), and cornering 1/3 of the market in Wilson County. Local officials hoped to expand this service into neighboring counties, which could further improve it’s financial position, and possibly allow for further cost savings for customers.

However, leaders in Wilson soon found themselves hampered by a 2011 state law, heavily backed by the telecom industry, which imposes significant restrictions on the ability of municipalities to develop and expand government-backed broadband services, beyond their immediate boundaries. Just as in Tennessee, the telecom lobby is deeply involved in the legislative process, donating substantial sums of money to politicians.

A report from Follow The Money, a project of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, offers some troubling details on how political donations might have influenced votes on the 2011 bill. Follow The Money’s analysis indicates that in the 2010 election cycle (which immediately preceded passage of the bill), a staggering 3/4 of North Carolina legislators received campaign donations from political action committees organized by telecom firms, with legislators in key positions, or those who were sponsors of the bill, bringing in several times the amounts of other, less powerful lawmakers.

What’s more, in many instances, the most influential lawmakers were given several times the amounts donated to them in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles. The most prominent example of this is Thom Thillis, a Republican who until recently served as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives (in 2014, Thillis was elected to the United States Senate).

Despite running unopposed in 2010, Thillis received nearly $37,000 in donations (more than any other state lawmaker), from telecom-backed political action committees (known as PACs), topped off by donations from Verizon, Time Warner and AT&T, shortly before he was sworn in as Speaker. This sum was more than eight times what Thillis took in during the 2006 and 2008 election cycles combined.

Donations from these PACs to the state Democratic and Republican parties, while not unusually large in terms of dollar amount, were unusual in terms of timing. In 2011, just a few weeks before the bill in question was filed, the PACs sent donations to both parties, and repeated this action just a few weeks after the bill was passed. Given that 2011 was not an election year, the timing of these contributions raises some troubling questions.

North Carolina and Tennessee are hardly unique in their restrictions on community broadband; at least 18 other states impose similar sorts of regulations, often passed at the behest of telecom firms. Frustrated by these restrictions, in 2014, the city of Wilson, as well as Chattanooga, Tennessee, filed a petition with the FCC, seeking preemption of state laws which restrict community broadband service.

In February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of this petition, finding that the aforementioned state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee were “barriers to broadband deployment, investment and competition, and in conflict with the FCC’s mandate to promote these goals.”

The FCC noted the positive commercial and business consequences of local broadband (including the expansion of companies like Amazon and Volkswagen to Chattanooga), and observed that state laws against local broadband, including those passed by North Carolina, were often heavily pushed for by “incumbent’ Internet providers (that is, major telecom firms).

Lastly, the FCC stated that it had the authority to override the laws of North Carolina and Tennessee, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a federal law which orders the FCC to “remove barriers to broadband investment and competition.” North Carolina and Tennessee each responded swiftly, bringing suit in federal court to fight the FCC’s ruling, and to preserve the ability of states to limit community broadband. These states’ arguments focus largely on the FCC’s authority to apply the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to supersede the laws of North Carolina or Tennessee.

Setting aside the legal merits of the states’ cases, it is useful to consider how state attorney generals are influenced by campaign donations. As ProPublica’s Leticia Miranda noted, in the 2012 election cycle, North Carolina’s attorney general, Roy Cooper (who is responsible for the litigation against the FCC), received around $35,000 in donations from the telecom industry, a figured topped only by donations he received from retailers.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee, the state retained Wiley Rein LLP, a powerful (and undoubtedly pricey) Washington DC law firm, headed by former FCC chairman Richard Wiley, as counsel in it’s suit against the FCC. Mr. Wiley’s prior client list is a comprehensive Rolodex of the telecom industry, including firms such as Verizon and AT&T, who stand to benefit from a ruling in favor of Tennessee, and against the FCC.

Given the power of telecom firms within Tennessee’s political system, it is hardly unreasonable to wonder why the state is so eager to devote such significant resources to defending a law so clearly opposed by, and arguably harmful to, the social and economic interests of many local cities and towns,.

In debating the merits of community broadband, just as with any policy matter, it is crucial to consider a variety of arguments, and critically assess the evidence which supports these stances. Legislators should hear from local citizens and their representatives, regarding the benefits of these programs in facilitating personal and business connectivity, and as a part of this process, they should also consider relevant social, economic and legal issues.

Lawmakers must also seriously consider the objections of telecom firms, and advocacy groups opposed to community broadband, which see these programs as a troubling expansion of governmental scope and power, as well as a potentially risky undertaking which might ultimately cause taxpayers to lose money.

Yet, in this deliberative process, no single voice should be amplified, or ignored, due to how much money an individual or corporation has available to dole out to state politicians. Community broadband programs could markedly improve the lives and economic prospects of people in places like Tullahoma, Wilson, and a thousand other towns across this nation. Or perhaps they are a problematic initiative, which must be reimagined or suspended altogether.

Either way, a policy should not be either implemented or discarded due to the financial interests of large corporations, which can direct their considerable profits towards favorably influencing elected officials. We need a serious debate here; one which is driven by facts, and a commitment to the interests of the public as a whole, rather than controlled by big checks and backroom influence peddling. The seemingly incessant flow of campaign cash through state houses across the nation, and to influential “independent” advocacy groups who are deeply involved in the electoral process, ultimately corrodes the plumbing of our political system.

The challenges posed by state-level lobbying and donations, aren’t limited to the debate over community broadband. In the past several years alone, lawmakers in Texas have stymied air quality regulations which were opposed by the energy industry, while legislators in Florida and elsewhere have facilitated the expansion of private prisons, in large part thanks to campaign cash from correctional industry groups. Meanwhile, concernshave grown that state attorneys generals are being heavily influenced by corporations and plaintiffs’ attorneys, who are using aggressive lobbying efforts and campaign donations to obtain their preferred outcomes.

It is more crucial than ever that advocacy groups, independent journalists, and perhaps most of all, private citizens, find creative ways to fight the corrupting impact of money on state politics. Without it, Americans will never have the quality of government which we deserve, but rather, that which can be most easily purchased through lobbying and donations. We will all be worse off for it.