2024 Presidential Imperative: Espionage Act Meets AI Power – A Dire Fusion Demanding Action
U.S. Presidential Candidates Have A Prolific Task To Debate: Limitations On Government's Use Of A.I. Technology In Dealing With The People
As the 2024 United States presidential campaign draws near, A.I. technology is advancing at a breakneck pace. If you think misinformation campaigns were effective before A.I. was available to the world, you need to do some serious catching up. And A.I. itself can indeed help by informing you of its capabilities.
This reality brings one vital issue to the forefront, one that must find space on the debate stage:
. . . how our government can exploit A.I. technology to target whistleblowers and suppress transparency in an era where digital surveillance is becoming increasingly sophisticated and autonomous.
The Espionage Act was enacted over a century ago, during World War I in 1917, and has long stood as a symbol of both national security and contention. The rise of A.I. technology and the echoes of history must ignite fierce debate among presidential candidates to ensure that such technology is not coupled with an already blunt tool of intimidation to free speech used to suppress whistleblowers.
One massive challenge is educating our presidential candidates on what this technology is. We will have to hope and dream that their staff will make sure they understand the general concept of what we are talking about and why there are concerns with its emergence to government control.
Amid the digital age, the Espionage Act's impact on individual freedoms resonates more profoundly than ever. The specter of A.I. surveillance casts a chilling effect on free speech, as potential monitoring of communications and online activities poses a shadow over the cornerstone of democratic societies. This brave new world challenges the very essence of the First Amendment and raises questions about the right to express oneself openly without fear of undue scrutiny.
At its core, the Espionage Act's broad language and lack of precise intent requirements have consistently raised concerns due to its wide ambiguity. The intersection of A.I. surveillance with the legacy of whistleblower protections underscores a need to ensure that individuals acting in the public interest are not inadvertently penalized. The Whistleblower Act of 1989 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2013 were necessary steps laying the groundwork for safeguarding those who expose governmental misconduct. In the era of A.I., the Espionage Act's application takes on new dimensions that warrant careful consideration.
Before laying this out further, let's briefly remind ourselves about these two whistleblower bills since A.I. tech has not been invented yet and is certainly not available to the masses.
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989
In a decisive move, Congress enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, with President George H.W. Bush's endorsement on November 21, 1989. This legislation breathed life into the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), a powerful and independent agency mandated to confront whistleblower retaliation head-on. Not stopping there, the OSC was also given the authority to wield disciplinary action against federal employees who dared to victimize those raising their voices in truth's pursuit.
Born out of the crucible of necessity, the Whistleblower Protection Act emerged from a landscape with tales of unsung heroes silenced by fear. The saga of Karen Silkwood, a nuclear technician tragically lost, coincidentally, in a car accident after exposing safety breaches at a nuclear plant. This act was conceived to be the sentinel against retribution, an armor to safeguard federal employees who dared unveil the dark underbelly of waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption within the federal government.
The Whistleblower Protection Act, since its inception, has evolved to stay relevant, to remain potent, and will surely need to be looked at again as A.I. technology integrates and becomes commonplace in politics.
In the grand governance theater, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 radiates in the deterrent it instills, helping prevent those who would dare to muzzle the messengers of truth. Doing so ensures that a watchful eye remains trained on the corridors of power, fostering transparency and fortifying our constitutional republic foundations.
The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2013
The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2013 was passed by Congress and signed into law on December 26, 2013. The law was intended to strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and to make it more difficult for the government to retaliate against whistleblowers.
The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2013 made several changes to the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, including:
Expanding the definition of protected disclosures to include information about waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption that is not explicitly related to the government's mission.
Making it more difficult for the government to retaliate against whistleblowers by requiring the government to prove that it would not have taken adverse action against the whistleblower but for the disclosure.
Creating a new process for whistleblowers to appeal adverse actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Increasing the penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers.
Creating a new Office of Whistleblower Protection within the Office of Special Counsel to oversee the implementation of the law.
The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2013 marks a vital stride toward safeguarding whistleblowers in the United States. Nevertheless, the journey ahead demands an initial effort to ensure unwavering protection from reprisals and provide the essential resources necessary for whistleblowers to unveil the truth about misconduct. At the same time, the law has also been criticized for not going far enough to protect whistleblowers.
The path ahead is both complex and pivotal. Instances of government accountability in an AI-powered world take on new challenges as algorithms track and analyze our digital footprints (our metadata) across our devices and cell phone towers that track our movements, interests, and more.
The people must demand that presidential candidates decisively address how to establish essential boundaries between the government's use of A.I. technology and our civil liberties so that technology can champion transparency instead of becoming a tool of oppression and censorship via intimidation.
Many have sounded the alarm on the Espionage Act's danger to our liberties.
Bruce Fein, lawyer, and former Justice Department official, has written extensively about the Espionage Act and has called for its reform. In a 2014 article for The Washington Times, Fein argued that the Espionage Act is "used to stifle dissent and punish those who expose government wrongdoing." He called for Congress to reform the law to "ensure that it is used only to prosecute genuine threats to national security, not to punish those who exercise their First Amendment rights."
James Risen, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has written extensively about the National Security Agency (NSA), has been the target of an Espionage Act investigation and called for law reform. In a 2015 article for The New York Times, Risen argued that the Espionage Act is "being used to intimidate journalists and chill the flow of information." He called for Congress to reform the law to "make it clear that it cannot be used to prosecute those who disclose information about government wrongdoing."
Alan Dershowitz is a legal scholar and Harvard Law School professor. He has written extensively about the Espionage Act and has called for its reform. He called for Congress to reform the law to "ensure that it is used only to prosecute genuine threats to national security, not to punish those who expose government wrongdoing."
Despite these attempts and many more to convince our elected representatives to make essential changes to this relic of the past that continues to shape the future, the Espionage Act persists.
As the 2024 presidential contenders step onto the stage, they inherit a legacy of debate and reform. Whether the Espionage Act, intertwined with the arc of whistleblower protections, can adapt to the demands of an AI-driven age remains unknown. Ensuring that national security does not eclipse cherished freedoms becomes a test of leadership in the journey toward a secure and transparent future for all American citizens of our Constitutional Republic.
Ultimately, it is up to voters to demand that our presidential candidates take a firm stance on the Constitutionality of the Espionage Act and its compatibility with the evolving landscape of A.I. surveillance.
Whether or not we, as a people, are acute and aware enough of what is at risk here remains to be seen. We'll know one way or another in the years to come as A.I. technology continues.