I'm not what you would call a conspiracy theorist but if I were, my Big Brother-ometer would be starting to ring right about now.
Yesterday's New York Times had a piece on the Dallas school system and the adoption of a new anti-truancy program that involves the tracking of students with GPS transmitters to thwart absenteeism.
A little over a week ago there was also a story about other schools using various iterations of online monitoring software that allowed parents access to their child's grades, participation, pending assignments, latenesses, and any discipline issues instantly by logging on via the internet.
I don't disagree with what the above programs are trying to accomplish, in fact, I firmly believe that increasing parental involvement is one of the keys to reforming our beleaguered public school system. (as opposed to the ineffective No Child Left Behind Fiasco- but I digress) However, I am concerned about the proverbial road to hell being paved with these good intentions.
Could we be ingraining in our children an acceptance of this sort of invasion of privacy? In an age where we have seen a radical expansion of the government and the steady encroachment of Frater Magnus into our lives, are we just a few generations away from an Orwellian dystopia?
I would like to think not. Some have made the case that it certainly appears to be headed in that direction. Cameras are popping up on more and more street corners, there is a push by some legislators for a national ID system, who knows, someday perhaps a DNA library of all citizens. Admittedly, this is for the most part, just alarmist conjecture- after all, we still enjoy more freedoms than most of the world. The problem with treading along this slippery slope is that once rights are lost, they seldom are given back.
It does concern me though, how (quickly)we seem to have traded in some of the basic principles and what were once considered absolute liberties for an illusion of a safe, secure world where everyone gets along, the bad guys can't get us, and no one's feelings are allowed to be hurt.
You don't have to look far to find evidence of this. From the self imposed censorship regarding those silly Danish Cartoons by most every American news agency, to the Supreme Court's ruling on imminent domain. Little by little, we seem to be redefining what it means to be American.
I have spouted off about the USA PATRIOT Act before, and have gotten into debates with some of you about it. I think it is symptomatic however of our typical American immediate gratification syndrome and shortsightedness. After the attacks on 9/11 there was widespread panic fueled by disinformation concern about our security and we responded decisively to enact this nifty blank check to give us back our illusion of safety. Very few legislators bothered to read and or understand what it was we were actually doing ;and no one seemed concerned that it encouraged our government to take a healthy dump on America and wipe its bloated ass with the Constitution. Now I can already hear some of you grumbling about "shifting paradigms" and "needing to engage in a new type of war" and "taking off the gloves" etc... All those things make us feel good; but at the end of the day if you betray what you stand for and, indeed the very thing you are trying to protect and preserve, you have already lost.
It seems a perfect storm of world events, technology, greed, and an under informed/apathetic society have come together to allow the steady erosion of the liberties and freedoms we like to write sappy country songs about, and in its place fuel an ever growing encroachment by government.
What do you think? Are we sliding down a slope here, or did I simply drink too much Libertarian Decaf this morning?
No longer an intern (The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/6/13)
11 years ago
14 Comments:
If it were decaf, you would have written less.
If you wrote about the Supreme Court's imminent domain. I would have thought it was an entertaining pun. They bring us a president, what is next?
We have become just a bunch of whiny nanny staters wanting the government to protect us from the scary monsters, while ignoring actual threats.
We want to torture people because some people think that is the American way of life. They should move to a country that practices government the way they like it - North Korea.
The biggest enemies of America are the traitors destroying our Constitution so they can delude themselves that their sacrifice of our freedoms is making them safer.
We used to believe in American exceptionalism. We should be treated differently because we were better than the rest of the world. We were leading the world in improving government. Now we seem to be doing everything we can to prove we are the opposite.
Every threat is the possible end of the "democracy" until the next threat comes along and has to be made to seem worse than all those that came before.
We can't tell the difference between the liberals and the conservatives any more - it's all just "government do everything for us," including think. Which is worse the left wing or the right? Who cares, they are both enemies of the Constitution.
So there, decaf drinker. :-)
privacy |ˈprīvəsē|
noun
the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people : she returned to the privacy of her own home.
• the state of being free from public attention : a law to restrict newspapers' freedom to invade people's privacy.
Parents are responsible (by law) for their children. The 'monitoring devices' serve only to provide parents with information about their children's scholastic performance. Science informs us that decisions made on the basis of more data have greater accuracy.
'Cameras on street corners' These devices are located in the public venue.
'National ID card' Why would any law abiding citizen object to this measure? What is wrong with developing a system that makes it harder for illegal aliens / terrorists to access US resources? Do you really believe that a national ID card would take away your constitutionally protected liberties?
'DNA library' This is old news to all the folks who have served in the armed forces. The DOD has maintained a DNA database of all active duty members since the 1990s. It is a good tool to aid in identifying remains, and I'm sure the federal law enforcement agencies use it for criminal identifications.
'The USA patriot act' Well, if you believe the rogue then I guess the US has no real enemies, and the only threats to our democracy come from our own leaders. The reality is that serious trouble makers exist, and their target of choice is the US. Given the biological, chemical, radiological, and temporal weapons that exist today, how can you defend a large nation without good intelligence? Can you name one instance where an American was denied his constitutional rights?
1. Technology is like a gun - in the right hands it can be a lifesaver - in the wrong hands it can be a disaster. We should focus on the hands --- not on the tech.
2. In the case of children / people on the street corner --- there is no expectation of privacy ---- I don't see a problem.
LD,
As I said in the post I don't necessarily disagree with anything that helps parents to get engaged in their children's education I just wondered about the larger overriding effects of a possible conditioning our children to a constant lack of privacy and what that could develop into.
You correctly point out that cameras on street corners are in the public venue. Again, what happens when the camera becomes ubiquitous, what about the array of satellites that have very high resolution camera capabilities. Is your backyard a public venue? What about through your bedroom window? Are we going to have to re-define what is a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Onto the USA PATRIOT act, I cannot fathom how one can rail about the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade but swallow the 342 page Gestapo manifesto that violates the constitution like a horny teenager with a weak-willed prom date!
This bill was rushed in to law because of political pressure and bunker mentality and since its hasty passage members of congress are slowly seeing the errors of their ways. Even your buddy Newt Gingrich has come out against provisions in the act. Can I name an American who was denied their rights?
There were several stories in the media about kindly little old men and ladies being detained and investigated in the name of National Security; whose rights, if not out and out violated, were bruised for sure.
More than this, however, how would you know if the government is playing with one of its new toys like the "sneak and peek" or monitoring what library books you are reading, or listening in on your phone conversation? Historically, governmental powers are not, shall we say, used with the greatest of restraint. You may argue, "what's the harm if someone listens in on my phone conversation , I have nothing to hide and only criminals have to worry?"
To this I say Sieg Heil!
Again, once we give up liberties in the name of protecting them, we have already lost!
As far as your analogy of technology being like a gun, I agree for most cases. When it comes to the surveillance of our citizens I would think that a more accurate analogy would be that of a virus. It will replicate and mutate until it is virtually omnipresent.
Call me old-fashioned, but I happen to think the less the government is in the business of maintaining a complete catalog of every detail of its citizen's lives, the better. Given the technology available and the reams of personal data and the digital footprints we all leave in the world, is it paranoid to think that the government or anyone else could abuse this and strip away any expectation of privacy we have?
'Is your backyard a public venue? What about through your bedroom window? Are we going to have to re-define what is a reasonable expectation of privacy?'
Ok ..... here I go with the 'normal' thing again. Most people walk around naked and f*ck inside their homes with the blinds closed ---- they do this because they realize that they do not have privacy outside.
The fact that you cannot name one individual who has suffered as a direct result of the USA patriot act should be reason enough to give you pause. The intelligence agencies have reported many successes in arresting bad guys since the USA PA came online. Show me a medication that has no possible side effects or untoward outcomes. Everything has its good and bad components ---- so far the USA PA has done much more good than bad. Relax, the sky is not falling :)
So do you have a reasonable right to expect your phone conversations are private?
My inability to name an American is more lack of ambition on my part to search through news stories, but I assure you there were many law abiding citizens harangued under the auspices of the Crucible-like environment caused in the post 9-11 era. Even if there were none publicly
acknowledged, once you start to justify the expansion of governmental powers with some sort of "if you wanna make an omlette, you gotta break a few eggs" Machiavellian excuse, you might as well throw the constitution in the trash.
Due process, Protections against illegal search and seizure...
Are these things you are willing to throw away? Not me.
Bottom line:
1. no amount of governmental expansion is going to make us 100% safe from those who would do us harm. Reality check: life=risk.
2. The USAPA is in DIRECT violation of the constitution and the abuse of power it protects against!
3. Pointing to a few "persons of interest" or "detainees" captured/detained/imprisoned to somehow justify the putting all of us at risk for governmental power expansion run amok is not acceptable to me.
No the sky is not falling, now. I'm sure that is what the people who suffered through fascist regimes thought too.. until it was too late.
Ok ------ queers, drug addicts, pedophiles, and criminals are good and the boyscouts and border security are bad ???
'So do you have a reasonable right to expect your phone conversations are private? '
My phone conversations travel over an infrastructure that I do not control or own --- so I cannot expect privacy. Internal corporate phone conversations are secure because they utilize private resources.
'My inability to name an American is more lack of ambition on my part '
Rest assured, the ACLU does not share your lack of ambition. If they could bring a case against the government they would !
'Due process, Protections against illegal search and seizure...
Are these things you are willing to throw away? Not me. '
No, but I want to afford the government every legal advantage in protecting us ---- I want to see that envelope bulging !!
'1. no amount of governmental expansion is going to make us 100% safe from those who would do us harm. Reality check: life=risk.'
I'm going to go with what I see. No major terrorist attacks since 911 is a good track record in my book.
I'm going to go with what I see. No major terrorist attacks since 911 is a good track record in my book
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
You can do better than that!
Surely you can't believe that the only reason we haven't had another attack is the USASPA?
Even if it were so, again you are making Machiavellian justifications.
It is not necessarily the personal infringement of rights (although that is hugely worrisome to me) but the precedent this kind of unchecked (against the framework of our constitution) that this sort of ad hoc power escalation will set down the road. What is to stop the government from crying "desperate times" again and chipping away evermore our rights?
'Surely you can't believe that the only reason we haven't had another attack is the USASPA?'
Its not the only factor in our success, but it is clearly a valuable tool. I've seen reports about terror plots that have been averted because the government had good intelligence. I have yet to see a case in which an American citizen was denied any constitutional protections. I imagine that situation would garner a fair amount of media attention.
Ok .... allow me to turn the tables on you. You've just been elected president ...... you are now charged with protecting 350 million people in the CONUS ..... our boarders have holes large enough to accommodate an aircraft carrier .... terrorists are located both in CONUS and abroad .... they are well financed, and equipped with the latest tech toys including bio/chem/rad/ weapons ...... now this is just one of a trillion issues you have on your plate .... the NSA tells you "if we monitor everything we can prevent attacks .... we are only going to look at material related to terrorist activity ...... the rest is deleted ..... this will save lives, but it will require your article 2 powers to authorize ....."
What do you say?
1. F*ck it ...... that kind of activity would violate my moral sensibilities ...... we'll wait and try to catch the perps after they light off a nuke.
or
2. F*ck yeah ..... put it online yesterday. Catch as many of those rag head co*ks*ckers as you can ... get medieval on their asses .... extract what you can ..... then feed them to the sharks. What other tricks can you do ???
'Onto the USA PATRIOT act, I cannot fathom how one can rail about the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade but swallow the 342 page Gestapo manifesto that violates the constitution like a horny teenager with a weak-willed prom date!'
Here's how: I am on the side of protecting innocent life in both cases .... my position is consistent, and constant as the northern star.
I used to tell my troops not to complain about a situation unless they could come up with a better way of doing things ..... why not give it a try???
****Exactly***** what would you do? How would you define 'acceptable losses', and the 'rules of engagement'?
Bear in mind that you and I both are sans secret service protection ..... and Philadelphia is much closer to the world trade center !
You act as if it is a completely binary decision. Either we have no protection at all from terrorists or we have to ignore the constitution.
Are these really our only 2 choices?
This is one of the problems I had with the USAPA getting fast-tracked on through congress (most of whom never read the damned thing). We were told this is the ONLY way to ensure our safety.
the NSA tells you "if we monitor everything we can prevent attacks .... we are only going to look at material related to terrorist activity ...... the rest is deleted ....
Well obviously that is a wonderful plan, no potential for abuse there at all! As long as we use such concise terms as 'terrorist activity' everything should be fine. I mean as long as the NSA super pinky-swears they will just delete everything else I guess we are all set. Besides no one in the government would ever lie; well at least not republicans! Ah, I feel safer already.
'You act as if it is a completely binary decision. Either we have no protection at all from terrorists or we have to ignore the constitution.'
I never suggested that the constitution should be ignored. My position is that our leaders should use EVERY legal tactic to protect the nation.
Of course every swinging dick has a different idea about what constitutes legal activity. The administration's lawyers felt that all the elements in the USA PA met constitutional muster. If they were wrong it will get sorted out by the judicial branch. That's the beauty of the system - checks and balances. If the USA PA was truly unconstitutional, it would have been successfully challenged in the courts.
The decision about protecting the country from its enemies is in fact binary; either we engage in a full court press (using all legal means) or we might as well do nothing. Half ass measures resulted in 911.
In the final analysis -- when you get right down to it, all decisions are indeed binary. Dr Shannon
proved this concept in the 1930s. Complex / high order decisions are just an amalgamation of many small binary decisions.
My purpose in the last post was to drive home the fact that most folks are arm-chair quarterbacks. They are great critics, but they are lacking in the innovation / action department. You're a smart guy ---- you understand all the variables and dynamics ------ take a stab at it and tell your readers exactly how you would protect America if you were in charge. I assure you, it is geometrically harder to develop a plan than to poke holes in one that somebody else created.
I never said that anything was easy. Nor did I say that I had the magic solution. One need not be a world leader to form an opinion. That is the beauty of our democracy. As a matter of fact, it is our mandate to do just this. Each of us is supposed to be a critic- it is in the discussion and dissent that true understanding comes.
If indeed I had an eloquent solution to all of our country's ails, I would not only post it here, but would be waiting by my phone for the call from the Nobel committee- hell, they gave Big Al one! Alas, I do not.
However, I don't think it takes a genius to state that we could reign in the USAPA so that is not such a sweeping blank check. My argument was not that I think our leaders are doing a poor job of protecting us. If I asserted this, I suppose the onus would be on me to proffer a better plan; and your point would be well taken. I am simply concerned about the potential effects this will have down the road.
I don't just blindly criticize for criticism's sake, I happen to believe that the USAPA sets a bad precedent and opens a virtual Pandora's box of potential totalitarian abuses. A few points:
1. Historically governments do not atrophy, and rights given up are seldom recovered.
2. The manner in which this nifty piece of legislation was passed, you have to admit, didn't afford the true debate that it deserved. It reminds me of going to a funeral home and being raked over the coals because you are emotionally distraught; besides, "doesn't your grandmother deserve the Super Deluxe Eternal Slumber 3000 coffin with the extra 2" of memory foam padding?" What congressman or senator would dare to dissent and be seen as "pro-terrorist". They talked for half a day about a fucking 10 commandments resolution, but this whizzed on through!
How history, and potentially the SCOUS, judges this remains to be seen I guess.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this whole terrorism thing is the overwhelming majority of Americans that were quick, and even eager, to relinquish some of their liberties in order to make us more secure. I understand this mentality, after all the whole country came together during WWII and made sacrifices. On the surface it seems the right, noble, and 'American' thing to do. When the going gets tough and all that. I just worry about where we may find ourselves by going down this road.
As was the purpose of the original post, (you remember the original post don't you?) I was asking about the possibility of our society becoming conditioned to an ever present and encroaching government.
If this makes me an armchair quarterback malcontent critic...so be it.
Oh, almost forgot.
If the USA PA was truly unconstitutional, it would have been successfully challenged in the courts.
Perhaps you should clarify: If the USAPA was, in the opinion of the seated judiciary unconstitutional, it would have been[will be] successfully challenged.
There are no "true" absolutes when it comes to law ;)
I sure hope medical school doesn't interfere with these little debates of ours!
It better not interfere !!! Just keep your priorities properly ordered and things should be fine:
philosophy
strange
scotch
family
bills
medical school
:)
Post a Comment