Marco Rubio called for an end to new protections against bulk phone data collection, and most of his fellow presidential candidates were on his side

Although Edward Snowden had his passport revoked, he is still a US citizen and eligible to vote in the presidential election, even from exile in Russia. But judging from the Republican debate last night, his choices are severely limited.



Snowden and privacy campaigners can find satisfaction that surveillance was one of the dominant issues of the night. When he leaked tens of thousands of NSA documents in 2013, he said he did so to provoke debate about mass surveillance. Las Vegas demonstrated the extent to which he has achieved that.

But privacy campaigners will be alarmed at Republican attempts to push back against even the modest legislative changes which resulted from the Snowden disclosures.

The charge was led by Marco Rubio, who said the Freedom Act, passed in the summer to end bulk collection of phone data, had given away a valuable tool of the security agencies in the fight against terrorism. The Florida senator said: “I promise you, the next time there is an attack on this country, the first thing people are going to want to know is why didn’t we know about it and why didn’t we stop it.

“The answer better not be ‘because we didn’t have access to records or information that would have allowed us to identify those killers before they attack’.”

His comments were aimed at rivals Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who had both backed the Freedom Act.

It was an easy hit for Rubio. Since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, terrorism has jumped to top of voters’ concerns. It is harder to champion civil liberties at a time when many are worried about security.

Rubio is helped by the fact that his views chime with the heads of the intelligence services, who have been vocal in recent weeks in the aftermath of the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. They have been pressing for more surveillance powers, especially pushing internet service providers to allow easier access to encrypted messages.

Surveillance must increase after terror attacks, say 2016 candidates Read more

Rubio wants restoration of the powers removed in the Freedom Act. But the Freedom Act introduced only modest reforms. While it ended the bulk data collection of phone records, it allowed the intelligence agencies to continue to scoop up other communications.

The intelligence agencies have so far failed to make the case for bulk data collection – access to communications of every citizen as opposed to targeted surveillance and the monitoring of persons of concern. In every attack since 9/11, bulk data collection, whether in the US or Europe, has failed to stop a single incident. The killers in the Boston attack were already known to the security agencies, as were those responsible for the Paris attacks.

Snowden, in a series of tweets on December 9, wrote: “The govt itself admits the kind of universal surveillance the FBI Director wants has never stopped a single attack.”

Snowden also addressed the broader issue of attempts to exploit concerns over security. “Abandoning open society for fear of terrorism is the only way to be defeated by it,” Snowden tweeted.

Lining up with Rubio were Jeb Bush, a strong ally of the NSA, Donald Trump, and Chris Christie. Cruz retaliated against Rubio by saying the Freedom Act strengthened the NSA. It was left to Paul to make the libertarian case in favour of privacy.

So where does that leave Snowden when it comes to voting? As a libertarian, who believes in strong adherence to the constitution and to small government, he backed Rand Paul’s father Ron in the 2008 White House race but harboured hopes that Barack Obama might help redress the balance in favour of privacy.

Apart from Rand Paul on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, Snowden has no public sympathizers in the race. And even Paul has said that while he welcomes the debate Snowden started, he thinks he should be jailed.