I swear to God. Orwell should have never written those stupid books. Thanks to him, every time they put a video camera on a public street, people start complaining about Big Brother is watching them. How does monitoring email/cell phone traffic, DNA or biometric testing, or videotaping me buying coffee on my way to work interfear with my rights? Personally, I could care less of some beurocrat has to sit through my mundane conversations with my girlfriend if it will prevent terrorists from driving a car bomb into the Lincoln tunnel or something.
Quite frankly, it is mind-boggling to me that some people are actually more worried about phantom government conspiracies than an actual threat.
P.S. - The Taliban is one of the most repressive governments I’ve ever heard of. They also have almost no advanced technology. Our freedom as Americans has nothing to do with video cameras or security cards.
You honestly don’t see the FBI or CIA reading your email or monitoring your cell phone calls as violating your Constitutional right to privacy? If Orwell were alive today, he’d probbaly agree that he shouldn’t have written those books. Because he wouldn’t believe any one had actually read them. You’ve just said that you’re willing to give up some of your rights so that the givernment can better protect you? Think about that for a while.
Have you ever heard of the Gestappo? Or the Soviet Union’s Department Of Internal Security? Granted, these organizations were much more effective in stopping crimes. They were also effective at making innocent people disappear. Were they BB? No, but only because they lacked that level of technology.
I have no problem with increased airport security. But if anyone is tapping my phone or monitoring my computer, they had damn well better have a warrant( currently, they can put a keystroke log on my computer without a warrant of any kind). That warrant had damn well better hold up under scrutiny. This is not a slippery slope argument. Ashcroft and others have made it clear that they would take away all kinds of rights if they could.
Because the idea of unrestricted searches is unconstitiutional. A video camera that monitors me on a street corner is as much a search as a tapping my phone or searching my desk drawers.
To monitor my cell-phone/e-mail, to search my house or my car, the people doing the monitoring have to get a court order which allows them to do so. To do DNA tests, they need my consent and (maybe) a court order.
Put up cameras on every street corner, they can monitor me at will, without court orders.
This is a major difference between the two and, IMHO a gross Constitutional violation.
I just did a search of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights at http://www.nara.gov and nowhere did the word “privacy” come up. Thus, we do not have a Constitutional right to privacy.
I don’t see it as “giving up rights for safety”. We sacrifice convienience for the sake of safety. When we go on an airplane, we and our luggage are searched as thouroghly as is practical. Is that a violation of our ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ rights? I think not. It’s not unreasonable to expect to be inconvenienced a little in order to prevent the deaths of 50, 500, or even 5000 people.
Specifically regarding phones/cell phones/email. I don’t really have the answer as to what level of security is reasonable. But think of it this way. If you are having a conversation with someone on the street, anyone within earshot can hear that conversation. You don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that situation.
I don’t have a problem with a camera monitoring public areas. It doesn’t affect my freedom of movement or expression. I don’t even have a problem with a camera that matches my face against any potential criminals. IMO, it would be the same thing if there was a cop walking a beat down my block.
Where I see a potential problem is if a record is kept of my comings and goings or my conversations. I would be concerned that maybe those records could be used to profile me for a job or health insurance or something.
Basically, I don’t think that our freedom is protected by hamstringing our law enforcement agencies. I believe that its protected by putting checks and balances in place that ensure that our government is looking out for our best interests.
As kind of a side note, I saw something interesting about German law enforcement. Germany is very privacy concious (presumably in light of WWII). When a camera takes a picture of you speeding in your car, they block out the pasengers face.
Constitutional right to privacy is implied in several ways, as the courts have ruled. It is the right to privacy which is cited as the basis for a woman’s right to choose.
But aside from that, random surveillance of the citizenry is a direct violation of this: ** “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches…” **
[legal mumbo jumbo]
No, no “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
[/legal mumbo jumbo]
Think about it, if the cops could just watch you (like on the street) it is not a violation of your privacy that they use a camera to do it. I think people forget that in 1984 the “telescreens” were in living rooms. Cameras on streets are not really all that frightening. “Public” streets: the polar opposite of “private.”
In response to those who believe that our civil rights are not at risk here, I offer the following from the NY Times:
But last week Mr. Fitzwater said in an interview that he did not necessarily feel the same way about the war against terrorism. “I think this conflict is going to require a suspension of freedom and rights unlike anything we have seen, at least since World War II,” he said.
History has shown us that civil rights are hard to get, but easy to give up. I have to assume that they will also be hard(er) to get back.
I disagree with the notion that the freedoms my forefathers died for can be relinquished in order to save even one person’s life.
I think that the intelligence agencies ought to pay attention to all of the scenarios of Tom Clancy’s books.
I think it was originally Griswold v. Connecticut that established something of a general right to privacy. Basically, the reasoning seemed to be that while no such right actually exists, the purpose of limiting the government’s powers as the Constitution does would seem to indicate that people have the right to expect that their privacy be respected. This case was then used to justify the Roe v. Wade decision, which I believe takes a right to privacy a bit further.
Altogether, due to the murkiness of the Constitution and subsequent USSC decisions (Griswold is famously poorly written), a right to privacy is a pretty debateable issue. But there is certainly something to it. In The West Wing a potential Justice’s views on the issue were the deciding factor in his being rejected in favor of another candidate.
[sub]Just in case it’s not clear, I’m expanding on what Stoid wrote, not disagreeing with it[/sub]
Very funny. [sub]I think it’s suppossed to be funny, yes?[/sub] “Tranquilis” comes from my Shell-Back initiation, wherein I emerged, finally, after a day-long ordeal, as a Spiny Shell-Back from the Sea of Tranquility. This happened while I was on active Naval service, doing things that I can tell my children about in another about 15 years or so. Maybe.
Having been on the pointy end of military… hmmm… activities… tends to give one a jaundiced view.
I Care. My freedom and dignity are more important than my need for security, especially the nebulous “security” offered by the various measures offered by the measures currently under consideration.
I think that is the real threat. Terrorists have largely succeeded, when intelligent people are willing to surrender their freedom for “security”. Sure, it’s just a little thing. After all, as things stand now, our government would never pass laws that would permit corporations to have credentialled security investigators arrested for doing their job, now would they? Oh wait… They did.
As for the disparity in technology, it’s a straw-man. Totally beside the point.
Some argue (I dunno what I think of it, but this is the argument) that while putting cops on every block to keep tabs on people is too expensive, cameras allow them to do it quickly and cheaply. Imagine, they say, the police keeping track of who goes to peace rallies and gay bars much more easily and efficently than they could sending dozen cops out on the street. Perhaps this information is passed on to higher officials, who can then alter tapes and put out trumped-up charges against “enemies of the state,” or release the tape to publicly humiliate people. Since assumably the original tapes wouldn’t be available to the general public, who could stop them?
All I’m saying here is that those who’re opposed to this concept HAVE thought through the “public = anyone free to watch you” thing. Their point is that while you COULD hire ten more cops to do all the corrupt things corrupt leaders would want to do, it’s a LOT easier with cameras.
Something to think about, whether you are a Democrat or Republican:
When considering some new government power, don’t consider how the current government would use it. Think about the scariest guy you know who could conceivably become president, then ask yourself how you’d feel if HE had that power.
I can’t decide whether to enjoy being on the same side as Stoid for the first time, or take it as a sign of the apocalypse.
Back to the topic-For a long time politicians wanting to take away our rights have said (Helen Lovejoy voice) "The children!My God! Won't someone please think of the children?". Now they've switched to "The terrorists! WE've got to catch those terrorists!". But if we allow our rights to be taken from us, the terrorists become irrelevant. They won't need to destroy America, because we will have done it for them.
I'd also like to remind everyone of a man named McCarthy. His commitee on Unamerican Activities committed plenty of unamerican activities. The slope IS slippery. It DID happen here. It could happen again.
“And the lion shall lie down with the sheep, and the Beast With Two Backs will give forth carnivorous lambs…”
Or something like that.
As to the OP…I am writing the morning after the bombing. If they can, they will attack very soon. If they don’t, we can likely breathe a bit easier.
However…the trouble with High Alert status is that nobody wants to be the guy to call it off. If something happens after that, the Designated Scapegoat law takes effect.
And to echo Doc re the “slippery slope”. Keep in mind: Hitler was elected.
Isn’t that the job of the ‘Office of the Fatherland Security’ - to warn us when and where another terrorist attack will take place? Or will they just be concerned with turning us into a police state? Anyone else think it appropriate that Clarence Thomas swore Tom Ridge in?
Rudy Guillani was on the news yesterday discussing something like this. Before 9/11, NY received an average of 10 bomb threats a day. That number has increased in the last few weeks. Out of an abundance of caution, they are reacting to threats that might, previously, have been dismissed as not credible. So, while cynicism is fine, I think that in this case I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t know where msmith537 is living, but I sure don’t want to live there. The idea that the government has a right (nay, a duty!)to know each and every little thing about your life is downright creepy on so many levels. There always has to be a balance between liberty and security, but such sentiments are nothing more than glorified ways to sacrifice all of our liberties for the security of being in a cage. Thanks, but no.
As for the original OP, I think it’s a tossup – on the one hand, you’re scaring the populace and doing the terrorists’ job for them. On the other hand, the heightened awareness will help folks keep an eye open and hopefully prevent something before it starts. The trick is to walk the fine line without falling into complete paranoia…
Stay alert!
Trust no one!
Keep your laser handy!
–“Paranoia: The Role-Playing Game”, West End Games