In the last few years there has been an increasing number of reports on new programs/projects aimed at developing or using new technology to collect information to identify citizens suspected of being “criminals”, “terrorists” or “enemies of the state”.
A few to mention are Palladium, Carnivore, Total Information Awareness and RFID, and of course the Patriot Act. This isn’t limited to the US, this is something which appears to be happening in many countries.
Cites: Palladium: controls software and information on personal computers (corporate, in limited use) Carnivore: monitors emails and web surfing at ISPs (FBI, in use) TIA: merges databases with financial, medical, communication and travel records, data mining (US DoD, on hold) RFID: micro radio transmitters in clothes and other products (corporate, in use)
A common feature of many of these programs is that ownership and control is in the hands of either multi-national corporations or the executive branch, with none or little supervision from the judicial or legislative branch.
Obviously the Patriot Act is one of the most well-known, allowing for insight into library records and items purchased at the bookstore. Such laws was said to be targeted against terrorists, but lately the lines seem to have become a little blurry:
The topic of this thread is:
To what extent should we as citizens in democratic nations allow for such surveillance to take place? Is it ok for governments to collect waste amounts of personal information or merge existing databases in order to identify criminals?
When running such systems officials rely on “pattern matches”. Every time they get a match a more thorough investigation is initiated against the individual, usually without a search warrant or any other court approval. Is this within the boundaries of traditional law?
Even if we trust our current leaders when they introduce new legislation allowing for monitoring citizens and collecting information, how (un)likely is it that the next leader in charge wont abuse these laws?
Bottom line: Do we have to rethink our concept of privacy and “the rule of law in a democratic nation” or can such system exist within our current “tried and tested” democracies?
(Since liberals are usually the most vocal opponents of such provisions, it would also be interesting to hear from conservatives how such laws ties in with the “no government intrusion” principle.)
I am not sure what your point it but it gives the impression that you are nitpicking on one word of a long post which is well written and very clear in its substance. The OP was written by someone in Scandinavia and I would assume not American. If those assumptions are correct, the OP is admirably well written and your nitpick is just silly. Let us grant you that the expression “enemy of the state” is not common in the USA today. So what? Is the concept any less common? Maybe we call them “enemies of America” or “enemies of freedom” but come on! Why don’t you address the substance of the post and quit your nit picking? Or is that the best you can do?
Well, I don’t think the OP is “admirably” well written (oops, there go the nitpicks, again). I think it tends toward hyperbole. If anything, our increasing use of and dependence on computers invites exactly the kinds of intrusion suggested by the OP, but it’s not necessarily the government that’s the problem. Law enforcement is only grabbing onto these newfound tools after corporations and marketing firms have already done so.
Free societies that allow the exchange of ideas and the ability to profit on those ideas created comptuer networks; it’s not particularly shocking to me that governments (or anyone else) will then use those networks in ways that weren’t originally intended. What would be more upsetting is possible intrusion into my own computers (or my house or my car or any place else that can be argued is my private property) without the proper warrants. I’m less concerned about the culling of my public breadcrumbs.
sed don’t necessarily relate to governmental intrusions into privacy, but
I gather you could do much better in Swedish or some other foreign language? It irks me when someone, instead of addressing the substance of what is being discussed, chooses to nitpick to death some stupid side point which has no bearing on the central issue. If you disagree with the substance of the OP then state your position and explain it (that’s what this forum is for) but your nitpick is just silly.
Thank you for your kind words, sailor. No, I didn’t mean anything special with the phrase “enemy of the state”. Maybe I got it from the movie. I’m not American, nor is English my native language.
I would like to emphasize that I’m not addressing only events in the US. On the contrary, the last two years legislators in many countries have passed “anti-terror” laws pavning the way for increased surveillance.
The issues I particularly would like to discuss are:
Why is it that such measures increasingly are left in the hands of the executive branch, with little or no supervison from judges or legislators?
Do we have to rethink our concept of privacy and “the rule of law in a democratic nation” or can such systems exist within our current “tried and tested” democracies?
Bryan, setting aside the TIA and PAtriot act, I would differ from you on the Carnivore issue. Carnivore, (now under the less-scary DCS1000 name) has the capability to capture not only everything the targeted person does on-line, but also anything anyone using that ISP does on-line. As far as I can tell, the only thing preventing a “fishing expedition” with this tool is the FBI’s assurance that they won’t do so.
I understand the rules of evidence wouldn’t allow them to use such illegally obtained information in a criminal case but they could certainly single someone out for special attention until his crimes could be proven. “Crimes,” could be a lot of things.
Anyway, the ability to wiretap a substantial section of a city seem very different to me than “culling public breadcrumbs.”
What if we were to apply some of the principles of copyrights to this issue? Instead of creating a “right of provacy”, what if we define this sort of information as the property of the individual it is about. I realize we are still shaking out what IP means in the digital world, but perhaps some of the principles could be instructive.
We could apply a “fair use” concept to provide corporations and law inforcement certain rights to access the information (when a customer gives permision, when they have supenoes and so forth). But in general the ideas of being secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” would apply. All we have to do is decide that simply looking into a database is an “unreasonable search” and that making a copy of the information is an “unreasonable seizure”.
Of course, we also have the technological problem of establishing encryption or digital ID verification tools which would prevent idle searches and seizures.
I would say motorists and “terrorists”. Isn’t the UK the country which invested heavily into surveillance cameras for parks and traffic junctions together with machine vision software which is supposed to detect “violence”?
Not that I think that this kind of software works anyway …
