Over this past week since the NSA scandal broke, the national Salem hosts – Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt – have been defending the NSA’s stated data-mining practice. On its surface, the case makes sense; they’re looking for patterns, contacts, things that point to terrorist contact in America.
And as far as that goes, it makes sense.
But I’m amazed that these learned guys have already forgotten the IRS scandal, and for that matter “Joe the Plumber”; once the government has information, it’s only as safe as the most partisan, lowest-integrity people who have access to it will allow it to be.
Joe Doakes from Como Park had some of the same thoughts. He emails:
Liberals say, re: the NSA scandal: “I really don’t care if the government looks at my stuff if they are indeed looking for terrorists.” [As we’ve seen, so do some conservatives – Ed.]
“Dear Mr. Jones. While looking for terrorists, we noticed you have done X. We’re forwarding this information to the local newspapers, your wife, your pastor and the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Just letting you know. Sincerely”
“Dear Mr. Jones’ Employer. While looking for terrorists, we noticed Mr. Jones has done X. The fact that you continue to employ him is suspicious, probably evidence you’re in cahoots with him. Please take appropriate action to clear your good name. Sincerely,“
“Dear Senator Z. While looking for terrorists, we noticed Mr. Jones has done X. We also noticed he gave money to your opponent, meaning your opponent condones people who do X. We thought you’d like to know. Sincerely,”
X can be anything unpopular that can be discovered by listening to your phone calls, tracking the GPS in your phone or car, examining your debit card charges, reviewing your e-mail or checking your web-surfing habits.
You bought a brick of .22’s (an arsenal), you clicked on a link in an email and found yourself on a porn site (sex maniac), you bought incandescent light bulbs instead of compact florescent (environmental terrorist), you have Not paid the hazardous waste disposal fee to throw away compact florescent light bulbs meaning you’ve been slipping them into the ordinary garbage (environmental terrorist), you attended a meeting of the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church (homophobe), the NRA (gun nut) or the GOP (all of the above).
If we could depend on the government to keep secret our private information and apply the law even-handedly, maybe it would be okay that they looked at everything. But recent scandals show us we can’t depend on that. Right now, we all hope the sheer volume of garbage collected will insulate us from the wrath being applied to any one of us in particular. Protection in numbers. Since I’m only one of a large flock of sheep, the odds are the wolf will go after another sheep instead of me.
Unfortunately, with the wolf having the power to sort through all sheep for tenderloin quality, the number of sheep provides me no protection. The rational response is tell the government nothing, prohibit them from collecting anything, and punish those who abused our trust.
Joe Doakes
Patterns of behavior aren’t without meaning. And the Fed’s patterns these days should give any thinking person who cares for freedom plenty of pause.
The folks who think the NSA scandal isn’t important are missing the key detail that you ARE a criminal whether you know it or not. From Glenn Reynold’s discussion of “Ham Sandwich Nation” (combining the uncountable and presently unknown number of Federal crimes with the ability of a prosecutor in indict a ham sandwich) to James Duane’s excellent run down of why the cops will always get something on you if you talk to them you should realize that with enough visibility into your life they will find something to get you on. From an undersized lobster, to a guitar you legally bought from Gibson that Gibson made of materials the feds didn’t like, to just about anything else, they can get you if you live a normal life.
While I have seen things that claim the surveillance was important in investigating crime X, I have yet to see that any claims that the spying discovered crime X and that the records couldn’t have been gotten with standard subpenas after the plot was discovered. We should not be giving up privacy for the mere convenience of government, especially when the government is overly concerned for its own privacy.
Conservatives have always been too comfortable with authority, but given the realities of today’s technological capabilities continued apologetics is really inexcusable.
John Acton had it exactly right; we ignore his truth at our own peril.
Remember, the IRS will control your heathcare starting January 1. What could possibly go wrong.
Dear Reporter, we admire your dedication and professionalism in pursuing this story and commitment to finding the truth. We wonder, though, if you have the same commitment to your child while that nasty custody battle is going on with your ex.
Conservatives have always been too comfortable with authority
…as well as the need for authority to be on the straight and narrow. There was a time that conservatism took that as a given. I hope we’re past that now.
Dear Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts, we noticed that you visited/called……It really would be unfortunate if the ACA was unconstitutional don’t you think? If that was the case, then people might start talking about ….. and the people who visit / call there.
It could (have) happen(ed)..
The point is the threat of terrorism is an illusion created by those who wish to exploit it. 9/11 was an anomaly. There were a statistically insignificant number of deaths from terrorism before 9/11 and after. Someone is more likely to be killed while attempting suicide with his or her own firearm than by an act of terrorism.
I hope this will provide an opportunity for public debate on the subject of government surveillance, of the sort that wasn’t really possible in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I would not be surprised, however, if the outcome of the debate (thoughtful or otherwise) is a basic ratification of what the government is doing.
Night Writer’s example is exactly what I was sort of thinking. Most of us are familiar (but haven’t been involved in) nasty divorce situations. People are quite ruthless during the event and will seize any little bit of information to prove an accusation. I started thinking about this when liqour stores started swiping drivers’ licenses and retaining tbe buyer’s habits.
Personal information is invaluable when proving a case against someone, and you don’t need a smoking gun; maybe just a few too many trips to the liqour store or shooting range to show a “pattern” of “antisocial behaviors.”
Same with evidence in criminal court or the probable cause to arrest or charge someone. Lots of little bits of information can be combine to substantiate whatever the prosecutor wants to establish. Then it’s up to the jury of your peers – remember last November’s election results?
You may have nothing to hide when each bit of data is looked at alone, but when someone has a chance to define your behavior by rearranging all the little things you do, good luck.
Ask actress Jeri Ryan and her former husband about what happens in Chicago when you oppose “The One,” but have sealed, private, but dirty little divorce secrets no one is supposed to know about.