Artist Trevor Paglen Talks to Jameel Jaffer About the Aesthetics of NSA Surveillance
On Friday, a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, will hear argument in Wikimedia v. NSA, a challenge to the lawfulness of “upstream” surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency. The NSA conducts this surveillance by tapping directly into the Internet backbone inside the United States — the network of high-capacity cables, switches, and routers that carry Americans’ communications with each other and with the rest of the world. By tapping into physical infrastructure in this way, the NSA is able to copy most international text-based communications, including many domestic communications, and search the contents of these communications for tens of thousands of search terms. The court challenge, which was filed by the ACLU on behalf of organizations including Wikimedia, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, and The Nation, is one of the most significant surveillance challenges to have been filed since the Snowden disclosures.
is a New York-based artist whose work deliberately blurs lines between science, contemporary art, journalism, and other disciplines to construct unfamiliar, yet meticulously researched ways to see and interpret the world around us. His visual work has been exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; The Tate Modern, London; The Walker Arts Center, Minneapolis; The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; the 2008 Taipei Biennial; the 2009 Istanbul Biennial; the2012 Liverpool Biennial; and numerous other solo and group exhibitions. His most recent book, , is a meditation on the intersections of deep-time, politics, and art. Some of his newest work, which focuses on the geography and aesthetics of the NSA’s global surveillance programs, is the subject of in New York City. The exhibition runs through October 24.
In anticipation of tomorrow’s hearing in Wikimedia v. NSA, Paglen agreed to answer some questions from Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer.
Trevor, thank you for agreeing to talk about your work, and for allowing us to post some of that work here. I’ve admired your work for a long time and it’s a privilege to get to talk to you about it. How did you develop an interest in issues relating to surveillance?
I’ve always been interested in trying to “see” the historical moment we find ourselves living in, and asking what the “big issues” of the day are. I started thinking about mass surveillance around the time of The New York Times’ 2005 revelations about the Stellar Wind program and the subsequent Mark Klein revelations. At the time, I was spending a lot of time looking at the so-called “state secrets privilege” in relation to work on CIA black-sites that I had been doing. Cases from your El-Masri v. Tenet to the EFF’s Jewel v. NSA showed that a huge and violent infrastructure associated with the “war on terror” was being constructed, and its workings were being kept out of the public, political, and juridical spheres through various forms of secrecy. The NSA’s mass-surveillance programs are very much a part of the same extra-legal geography that CIA black sites, drone wars, and even military facilities like “Area 51” are.
NSA/GCHQ Surveillance Base, Bude, Cornwall, UK
Many of your photographs relating to surveillance — including the ones we’ve posted here — are beautiful, even stunning, but to anyone who knows what’s going on in that building, or under that body of water, the photographs are also eerie. They’re like pictures of Dorian Gray. Is that eeriness one of the things that made you interested in these particular scenes?
Most definitely. I play a lot with aesthetics and the tension between seeing and not-seeing. It’s a pretty old trick in art: to take something that seems familiar and show that something deeply strange might be going on that we have a hard time recognizing.
The Utah data center depicted in one the images we’ve posted here is reportedly used to store communications obtained through upstream surveillance. The immensity of the data center gives you an idea of the scale of the surveillance. Is the staggering scale of the infrastructure needed to support all of this surveillance something you deliberately set out to convey?
National Security Agency Utah Center, Bluffdale, UT
There are a couple of ways in which I try to point towards the scale of surveillance. On one hand, buildings like the Utah Data Center are so massive and hold so much information that their physicality points to the scale of the programs they support. On the other hand, one of the pieces I like a lot is called “Code Names of the Surveillance State,” which is a massive scrolling list of over 4,000 code names for various NSA projects. Individually, they’re deliberately nonsensical, but in aggregate I think they give a peek into the scale of the surveillance state.
As you’ve been creating art relating to surveillance, there’s been an extraordinary public debate — provoked by Edward Snowden’s disclosures — about the proper limits of government surveillance power. Do you see your art as a contribution to that debate? Or do you think of the art as something that exists on a plane apart from politics?
I don’t really see anything in the world as being separate from politics, so I wouldn’t say that art is either. But I think what’s powerful about art is that it can help us to see the world around us, and what’s more, give us permission to look. I don’t really think that are can make an argument one way or another, but I hope that it can help develop the kind of visual vocabularies that we use to navigate and make sense of the world around us.
Some of your previous work has to do with drones. Like your surveillance images, your drone images are beautiful and frightening at once. Something else the two sets of images have in common is their focus on new technology. Do you expect technology to be a focus of your future work as well?
Technology has always been a part of my work because technology is so interwoven with the rest of the world at this point that there’s no place where “technology” ends and something else begins. Having said that, technologies have moral and ethical “scripts” built into them in the sense that they enable certain forms of behavior and preclude others. There’s no such thing as “neutral” technologies. I’ve got some newer projects I’m developing having to do with machine-vision and automated-seeing, and another handful of projects having to do with the “geology” of images (looking at, for example, mines where photosensitive minerals come from). One of the big projects I’m also working on is a collaboration with Jacob Appelbaum, where we’re building sculptures that also serve as open Wi-Fi hotspots that route all data over Tor and are themselves Tor relays. For that project, called “Autonomy Cube,” we’re trying to imagine what the Internet might look like if privacy and anonymity were built into its backbone, as opposed to the corporate and military surveillance that are indistinguishable from today’s Internet.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.