"Liberty Or Scrutiny", an essay by my friend Henry.
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"]
It has recently come out ([a href="vny!://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html"]vny!://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html[/a]) that ourown government has been spying on us through our cell phones, in addition to all the other ways our lives and habits have been put under the microscope, all in the name of security.
Come with me, gentle reader, as we explore a tale of science fiction. Our tale begins when it becomes possible to monitor any person anywhere at any time. It is also possible to instantly move objects by some kind of teleportation. Of course, the computers are also vastly improved. Our case is this: should a responsible government, in our scenario, program the computers to watch the biological telemetry of every person 24/7 - in case they experience an accident or need emergency medical attention? Suppose a person were to fall down stairs - aid could be immediate and the consequences of the fall minimized. Of course, one could argue that the computers could monitor more about people than just their vital signs and when the person began to fall down the stairs, the computer could prevent their falling at all. Sounds sensible. What if a person were suicidal? When should the computers intervene? When a person slits their wrists or takes a boatload of pills? What if they use a gun or make a bomb to blow themselves up? When does the government have the right to interfere with a person's choices, in their own defense?
If the computers monitor a chemical imbalance in a brain that indicates schizophrenia, psychosis, or dementia, should they intervene only after this person has harmed others, or should the computers act pre-emptively to remove the person from proximity to others before harm is done? What if the person is only a little crazy? How crazy is crazy enough to act? What if it's you that the computers judge dangerous?
And when we program all these computers to do what we want them to do, what oversight is there? How do we monitor the monitors to ensure that they are operating properly, and that the intended results, and only the intended results, are achieved? How do we handle mistakes? What is the liability ofthe state to make amends?
Then we have another issue in our scenario: if we have our computers acting to prevent the bad consequences of our actions before they happen, how do we learn? Cause and effect are circumvented. You can fall off a building while foolishly trying to climb it and you will come to no harm. You can fail to unload your pistol before you clean it and you will suffer no ill effects. Won't this whole process have unintended consequences?
Enough science fiction - lets turn to science fact. What prevents our government from eavesdropping on every private conversation within reach of a cell phone? When caught doing this, they explain that their purpose is only to serve our general welfare and security. What is security? The Cambridge International Dictionary says "to make certain something is protected from danger or risk." That seems pretty straight-forward and in keeping with a democratic state, where the state's principal interest is to act in the interests of its citizens. Trouble is that people are pretty complicated.
When we speak to another person, our normal behavior is to assume that our words, meant for that person, are being heard by just that person. When other people eavesdrop, it puts us at risk (emotionally, if not intellectually). Most people abhor public speaking for many of the same reasons - it plays on your insecurity. It is one thing to make a mistake or say something stupid to Susan, but you don't want the whole world to know you're a moron. Living in a word where every one of your remarks or actions could be played back to you is an anathema to practically everybody. It is something almost nobody wants. It is something no government with any democratic aspirations should contemplate, regardless of the risks of not doing it.
This is why our legal system (another name for state security apparatus) has always operated on a system of Writs and Warrants, with considerable oversight - and the ability to challenge the appropriateness or legality of the special instruments of surveillance, at any time, and even to file suit to recover damages from improper or illegal surveillance.
Thanks to the Bush Administration and a compliant or complacent Supreme Court, we have largely lost the protections we formerly had against unreasonable observation of our private lives by our government. Bush has promulgated the policy of surveillance by executive decree without oversight or possibility of legal challenge. There is absolutely no guarantee that the ame surveillance, which allegedly keeps you safe from terrorist bombs on the street where you live, will not also find its way into other databases and prevent you from getting a loan, a promotion, or a better job. And that is making the BIG assumption that everything in this surveillance database is true and correct - nobody made any mistakes and nobody came to a wrong conclusion. It's bad enough to be paranoid because other people may know what you do in private - it's quite another thing to be justifiably paranoid because people may think they know things about you that aren't true.
And now, as if things weren't bad enough, President Bush is now saying that he has the absolute right to read our mail without needing any warrant whatever.
We have to look at the tension this makes in our society. We need to look at the effects of this kind of apparent security on out perceived security. Do I want my son killed by an IED set off at his community college? Of course not. Do I want to have no privacy whatever for the next 40 years in order to avoid a minuscule chance of maybe avoiding some unspecified terrorist consequence? Of course not. In this equation, I'll wager a doubt against a certainty and tell my government to STOP looking over our shoulders and to return to the method we used successfully for more than 200 years: rigorous warrants with oversight and legal accountability. This is in keeping with our Constitution and Bill of Rights and that in itself ought to be good enough for anybody.
