This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
Pundits are ranting about it, but what we really need is a discussion about privacy vs. security.
Half
a century ago, the great American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote
about “the paranoid style in American politics.” He discussed the
influence of conspiracy theories and extremism in our collective
mindset.
Since
that time, two phenomena have become apparent. The first is that we may
indeed have much to be paranoid about. Or put another way, “Even
paranoids have real enemies.” Watergate, and the Nixon Administration in
general, demonstrated even to the least paranoid among us that
government officials are fully capable of misusing the IRS against
political enemies, breaking into psychiatric records of perceived
traitors, burglarizing the political opposition, and all other manner of
dirty tricks that cross the line from politics as usual to felonies.
The
second phenomenon is that the first phenomenon has caused many
Americans to become even more paranoid, to seek conspiracies where none
exist, to confuse overzealousness with evil intentions, and to assume
malevolence rather than incompetence or laziness. The reality is that
over the past 50 years, while we have somewhat less to be paranoid
about, the paranoid streak in American politics has broadened
considerably.
The most recent revelations
regarding the mining of phone and internet data provide a case in
point. The initial revelation was made by a man named Glenn Greenwald,
who wrote about them
in the Guardian and who has been all over the media taking a victory
lap. Greenwald is the personification of the paranoid streak in American
politics. He is more of an ideologue than a reporter. He has long been
an apologist for terrorism—a word he believes serves only as an excuse
for violence and oppression by America and its allies. He has pushed
false stories that his paper was forced to backpedal on, such as an AP report
blaming the incendiary video “The Innocence of Islam” on an Israeli Jew
living in California. He is Chomsky-like in his willingness to blame
most of the world’s ills on the United States, Israel, the Obama
Administration and liberals who do not buy into his radical worldview.
He viciously opposed
Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Greenwald would not
understand the word “nuance” if he tripped over it, which he often does.
Now
he is pushing the view that the Obama Administration’s surveillance
program is not really designed to prevent terrorism but rather to gather
information for less salutary purposes. Greenwald’s hard-left
conspiracy theories are attractive to far-right talk show hosts and
bloggers who share a common suspicion of liberal government. This
suspicion has been nurtured by the recent IRS scandal and the Justice
Department’s overzealous pursuit of journalists. The result has been a
debate dominated by the extremes, with little patience for nuance,
calibration, or balancing. The reality may be less exciting (and less
suited for talk show dialogue) than the paranoid narrative, but the
boring reality is what must be addressed if necessary reform is to be
implemented.
There is an enormous difference between listening to the content of people’s phone calls and creating a database of telephone numbers.
And
reform of the current excesses of surveillance is indeed necessary.
There is too much secrecy, too little accountability, too much
classification, not enough information, too much speculation. This all
feeds into the paranoid streak because we don’t know what we don’t know.
For those who trust the government this informational lacunae is an
excuse for inaction. For those who do not trust the government, it is an
excuse for ranting and raving instead of legislating compromised
reform.
It is important not to lump all forms of intrusion together, but rather to consider them category by category.
There is an enormous difference between listening to the content of
people’s phone calls and creating a database of telephone numbers used
to make and receive calls and their duration. Creating the meta-database
is a fairly debatable issue and should be the subject of hearings at
which non-classified information can be discussed. I, for one, would
like to hear the arguments for and against such a database before
deciding whether on balance the benefits of the intrusion outweigh their
obvious costs. For decades, the Supreme Court has permitted what are
called mail watches, under which postal authorities have the power to
maintain data based on the outsides of envelopes—the address to and from
which the letter is sent. We no longer send letters. Now we use quicker
and more efficient forms of communication. As technology changes, so
must the law.
I
also want to hear both sides of the debate concerning the far more
serious intrusions into e-mails and other forms of modern electronic
communication. Although the Obama Administration assures us that these
more intrusive techniques are not used against Americans, there is every
reason to believe that at least some Americans are caught up in the
electronic net, whether deliberately or inadvertently.
So
let the debate begin, but don’t let it be dominated by the extremes or
fueled by paranoia. We need reform, not revolution—improvement, not
impeachment.
No comments:
Post a Comment