The Ek’s Files

There’s an interesting article at The Raw Story about how the U.S. government is drafting plans for surveillance of pretty much everything on the internet. Nobody who’s been following what the Bush administration has been doing in the name of homeland security would be surprised. Perhaps one of the most compelling statements in the whole article is that “Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.” In other words, any policy or action that favors individual privacy has a negative impact on national security, and vice versa.

Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as having said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Is it worth it for us to sacrifice some of our liberty, by way of submitting to surveillance of our internet activities (or other activities, for that matter), in order to make it harder for terrorists to attack us? Or is this the next step down a slippery slope that eventually leads to widespread monitoring of our daily lives that essentially turns us all into potential criminals in the eyes of the state?

Notice that I said next step, and not first step. Our government already gathers an enormous amount of information regarding our activities. The government already forces (or tries to force) the preservation of a large amount of data–everything from what web sites we might visit, to where and when we flew on a commercial airline, to when we purchase an over-the-counter cold medicine that contains ephedrine, to when we transfer large sums of money. Basically, the government forces the collection of this data so that it is available in case it might be useful to prosecute someone for breaking the law. How long is it before the government decides to mine all this data in search of laws being broken?

What’s wrong with that, you ask? Well, let’s start with the amendments to the Constitution, one of which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, the government must demonstrate that a crime has likely occurred before they can search private property for evidence to that effect. The Fourth Amendment is what protects you from the police busting down your door to search your home and property without probable cause. It’s not hard to argue that this same amendment to the Constitution is what grants you the right of privacy. It seems like collecting enormous amounts of data on the entire population, and then searching that data for trends of one sort or another, is at least somewhat akin to allowing the police to kick in all our doors and rummage through our homes.

I guess as long as we haven’t broken any laws, we have nothing to hide. But can you really rely on the government to preserve and respect your constitutional rights when so much data is at its disposal? All it takes is the wrong man in a position of power to decide that certain people or classes of people have dangerous ideas, and to use that mountain of data against them. Remember Joe McCarthy? J. Edgar Hoover? These were men who appeared to love their country very much, and they felt that drastic actions were necessary to protect it, even at the expense of personal freedoms that Americans had embraced in the Constitution and could seemingly take for granted in everyday life.

It’s curious how someone would champion the protection of America by proposing actions that would destroy those liberties that make America great. Is there a terrorist threat to the United States? Undoubtedly so. 9/11 was a devastating tragedy for America–certainly in terms of the number of lives lost in the attack, but equally so in terms of how Americans are allowing their freedoms to be slowly beaten down by the actions taken by our government to protect America from further attacks.

Are we willing to give up a little privacy, a little liberty, for a little extra security? Can we truly rely on the government to keep us safe, even at the cost of personal freedom? Or must we accept that we live our lives in a time when the risk of terrorist attacks must join the list of risks we already live with on a daily basis?

What’s more risky? An attack by terrorists on our lives? Or an attack on our freedoms by our government? Tell me what you think.