Publicani

What is privacy? The right of an individual to control information about oneself. In other words, the right to be left alone. In my mind this is the right on which America is built. The constitution is the contract between me, as the people, and the hired help, the government, whose sole purpose is to protect my right to be left alone.

For example, some people raised privacy concerns about a new X-ray machine that shows airport screeners a clear picture of what’s under passengers’ clothes. But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate subcommittee that he wants to employ the technology and doesn’t want an “endless debate” over privacy issues. Chertoff does not want an endless debate. Chertoff is probably busy. Or he may be tired. I don’t want an endless debate either. I just don’t understand who gave Chertoff the right to look at my genitals as the precondition of my taking a flight. I did not give him this right. Did you?

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Information about myself is my property, my liberty, my life.

You may not care as deeply as I do about privacy and frankly I don’t care whether you do or don’t. Just don’t invade my privacy. Please.

Three Reasons Why Privacy Is So Hot

I can think of at least three reasons why the privacy issue is becoming one of the hottest political topics.

The main reason is technological. Privacy is the right to control personal information and the information technology goes through revolutionary changes. Not only those x-ray machine have arrived, so called backscatter technology, but also modern image collecting and processing, digital cameras, spy satellites, cellular phones, e-mails, forums, chats. There was quite a change in the technology by which we communicate our private information, and in the technology which could spy on us while we are doing that, so we better pay attention.

The second reason we talk about privacy is because we are in the election season and it is important to know what the next President is thinking about privacy. After all, it’s not just four years of Presidency - with two terms, their children, spouses, other close relatives, and trusted servants it could easily take our life span before the next dynasty comes to power.

The third reason is the War on Terror which gives the anti-liberty forces an excuse to curtail our privacy. After being hired, the government turns around and tells me “I will protect your privacy from foreign and domestic dangers, but you have to sacrifice some of your privacy.”

Unfortunately, both mainstream Republicans (Ron Paul is the single exception) and mainstream Democrats support this logic. Let’s take FISA as an example. Do you know what it is? Federation Internationale du Sport Automobile? No.

FISA - Shmisa 

Here is a little history lesson. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed by Congress in 1978 in response to revelations that Nixon was using national security claims to spy on his enemies. It required in most cases of electronic surveillance to receive authorization within 72 hours after (!) surveillance begins. Following 9/11, Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor and collect the e-mails and phone calls of American citizens without a warrant. Do you understand? Do you understand? All your e-mails and phone calls have been recorded, analyzed, and filed away.

After delaying the story for a year because of the pressure from the White House, the main media reported this illegal activity of our government in late 2005. A few months ago, Democrats and Republicans legitimized the practice by passing the so called “Protect America Act.” Don’t you love the new-speak? It should have been called “Screw You Regardless (SYR).” Now, consumers are suing telecommunications companies for giving our private data to the government.

SYR expires this February. So Congress is trying to pass the law granting telecom companies amnesty retroactively. The New York Times sighs: “With Democrats Like These …”:

It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.

Qwest, by the way, refused to participate because it believed that the government request was illegal. AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and Verizon violated the law.

Okay, what’s the government’s next move? The way to manipulate Congress is to manipulate the public opinion.  And here it goes.

They Tell Us We Have to Change Our Definition of Privacy

Donald Kerr, the number two man in the National Reconnaissance Office (another fancy name for a spying agency) delivered the keynote speech at the GeoSpatial (spy satellite) symposium:

… privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General , oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change.
_______________

 I’m willing to share my credit card number and expiration date with a person I have never seen, have no idea whether they’ve been vetted or not. I’ve certainly been able to get past being anonymous in that transaction. And of course, you multiply that by all of the transaction that you’re involved in every day.
_______________

And people were very concerned that the ability to intercept emails was coming into play. And they were saying, well, we just can’t have federal employees able to touch our message traffic. And the fact that, for that federal employee, it was a felony to misuse the data – it was punishable by five years in jail and a $100,000 fine, which I don’t believe has ever happened – but they were perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an ISP who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data. It struck me as an anomalous situation.

What NYTimes Readers Think about Privacy

I expect that the willing media would continue this theme. That in modern times we don’t need privacy. Especially during, you know, the global war on terror. And here what we the people (or at least some of the people) think. Check out some of the anonymous comments from the New York Times readers:

There is no “balance” between privacy and safety. Privacy stands alone. It either is or it isn’t.
_______________

Privacy, to me, is my having the knowledge that my personal information is protected from Big Brother Government spying.
_______________

I believe that if I am not under suspicion of any crime, the government has NO RIGHT to access my private records. Where did the government get the idea that they have a right to personal records of US citizens? Surely it was not from the US Constitution.
_______________

To illustrate the point, Mr. Kerr described what he called an “anomalous situation”: the same people who are worried about government surveillance of e-mail are nonetheless “perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an I.S.P. who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data.” Good Heavens! Equating a “green-card holder” to the U.S. Government? The comparison is beyond ludicrous. Since when does an “illegal entrant” have the same power to misuse my info. as the U.S. Government? Just another ‘trust us, we’re the government’ argument indeed.
_______________

Mr. Kerr overlooks a couple of important factors. If I identify myself to my ISP or an on-line merchant, *I* identify myself. *I* make the choice, knowing why I am making the choice. Mr. Kerr wants to read my e-mail without my knowledge, consent or choice. Let me see if I can phrase what Mr. Kerr seems to be saying in a more easily understood way: If you get nude with one person, how could you reasonably object to some unknown person or persons seeing you nude?
_______________

Private information is information I may or may not release at MY discretion. Mr. Kerr might not approve of my discretion, but that does not make it his to usurp. What evidence could Mr. Kerr offer to suggest that our government exercises better judgment than I do? Orwellian indeed.
_______________

The constitution requires a warrant prior to a government search. Period. Even so-called “strict constructionists” can’t change the meaning of the following words from the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, This Presidency Is Almost Over

What about the next one?

“Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”

Rudy Giuliani

The Soviets were the free-est people in the world because in every school they learned that “Freedom is a recognized necessity.”

Romney said the Bush administration has struck the right balance between privacy and security.

“I believe that the first civil liberty that I want to see protected is my right to be kept alive,” Romney said. “I expect my government to keep me from getting blown up.”

But I don’t want to finish on a pessimistic note. How do you like this candidate:

Ron Paul:

“The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters. “

Amen, brother!