Let's first agree that technology necessitates changes, re-conceptualizations, and revisions to public policy. Unfortunately, the United States Congressional session currently in progress has redefined the words lethargic, intransigent, and stubborn. At this pace, the Congress in place will be among the least productive in United States' history, and
the least productive in the last hundred years. Translation: congress cannot act fast enough to adapt to the changing technological climate. As we've seen with various tech collapses in the past decade, protecting information continues to be more difficult, more expensive, and, some might argue, more important; people live paper-less lives, and there is a justified anxiety about keeping sensitive, lucrative information protected, out of harm's way. Yet, as we've seen through three major security leaks over the past year or so, it has become clear that the clandestine policies instituted to compensate for the lack of any real movement in congress have been geared not so much toward protecting personal information, but, instead, geared toward ungrounded, baseless, and invasive intrusions by our government into our digital lives. Ostensibly, to protect us, but I'm not so sure. The NSA has put pressure on large companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Verizon (just to name a few) to provide large swathes of personal information without probable cause, or the need notify those whose privacy has been invaded. Consequently, the American public has developed a severe antipathy towards these organizations and their relationship to information gathering. Clearly, at some point (hopefully), the powers at be, locked securely away in a bunker somewhere, probably hopped up on Folger's Best, made the choice, weighed the pros and cons, that, ethically speaking, the political climate justified this invasive attitude. Forgetting about the unconstitutionality of this behavior, I'm simply interested in trying to figure out what kind of disposition provides the framework for such a decision to be made. In a certain way, the government's agencies have decided that it is better for the American people to live in a highly restricted and limited existence if it means that that existence is unequivocally protected. Meaning, forget our privacy, forget our general feeling of psychological, cyber, and physical mobility, as long as we are "safe." That is the only way I have been able to orient all of this craziness. However, the question becomes: what exactly have we given up, unknowingly? Despite the fact that it is unclear whether we are safer or not, is this a kind of society that is worth living in, one where choice, discussion, and imagination have no credence? As denizens of this country, we were not given a choice about these invasions. The choice was made of us by our representational government, presumably, for a well being. Just for curiosity's sake, I'd like to hear thoughts on why our government made these decisions and according to what moral framework. Thoughts?
Do we think that choice is more important than safety/stability? I imagine that we value freedom in this country and even the mention of losing "freedom" will anger any citizen. However, I don't see how we are losing our freedom by being monitored if we are acting within the confines of law. Moreover if monitoring is what makes us act like good people even if we weren't good people to begin with, then I say all the better for monitoring. In a society where consumerism and utilitarianism deeply infiltrate our thought processes, it's reasonable to suspect that anyone with a Gyges' ring will turn into at least a shoplifter to satisfy his/her own self interests.
ReplyDeletePersonally I do feel protected if my information is in the hands of trustworthy authority. I willingly give my information to car insurance companies and phone companies. If the US government is not a less trustworthy entity than these companies, then I don't see why I wouldn't give my information to them in order for my health and my properties to be protected. A just city sometimes requires the leaders to gain a lot of information of its citizens and not disclose these information to all of its citizens.
Tim, I would love to see the sources outside this blog that initiated your suspicions of the government because what you have been saying seem rather vague. I don't know what those "restrictions and limitations" on the citizens are/ could be. Maybe future comments could address this issue.
As you can see, I sort of rushed this post; unfortunately, I mixed up the start date, which put me up against a wall as far as getting this put together. That being said, I will do my best to address your well thought out response. I think there are several issues to consider with respect to surveillance: (i) Should a government have permission to invade a citizen's privacy without just cause? As you can see, skimming through telephone records, emails, or facebook posts could be considered the digital analog of the arbitrary "stop and frisking" that goes on in New York City, among other places. Would you like to live in a city where your mobility, your person, and your sense of self are perpetually invaded, questioned, and antagonized? This digital trolling amounts to a series of unprompted searches without consent or notice. The clandestine nature of information seizures is what is at issue here, I think. (ii) For whom is the surveillance organized. Yes, conceivably people will act more 'just' while under surveillance; however, this behavior tends to obscure deeper issues that crime rates tend to reveal, namely, systematic income inequality. (iii) The problem with the government having your information and not your insurance company has to do with the government's adjudication responsibilities. Hypothetically, if our laws were perfectly just and were monitored justly, then we wouldn't have to worry about our government controlling this information; however, such a perfect world, or city, does not exist. Therefore, conceivably, your efforts to bring about that perfect city, via public demonstration, social organization, protest, etc., threatens the power structure in place. Would you want the very over-seers who have consolidated, illegally, their power to also be the ones who control those information highways? Also, we should truly be more specific about what kinds of information we are talking about. I'm more interested (mainly because I have no money) in protecting my writings and correspondences from government scrutiny. This isn't because I am saying illegal things or conversing with people doing illegal things but primarily because such an all seeing eye would change the way in which I relate to what I can write or who I can converse with. The presence is very important socially, psychologically, economically, etc., of this all seeing eye approach that you sound pretty comfortable with.
DeleteAgain, I hope you'll forgive me for my lack of clarity. I did take a moment, however, to provide some general sources on specifically the NSA's nearly decade-long mass surveillance project, called PRISM. Here are three different kinds of sources on the top: The first, an OP-ED, by a Virginia Law Professor. The second, an article detailing a claim made by the ACLU that PRISM is in fact illegal. The third, an article detailing how this debate got started; all are from the NYtimes.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/us/nsa-phone-data-collection-is-illegal-aclu-says.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/us/politics/momentum-builds-against-nsa-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all
In response to the question posed by the previous commenter’s "Do the American people believe that choice (and freedom by extension) is more important than personal security", I believe that history has repeatedly proven that Americans consider their personal liberty to be one of the most prized possessions they own. Any such attack on said liberties are almost always fought against, as the idea of personal liberty is synonymous (or was so) with America.
ReplyDeleteSince the latest NSA scandals came to light, many are questioning the extent to which the Intelligence gathering entities should have access to the personal information of its countries citizens. My personal opinion is that intelligence gathering should only be authorized by a panel of elected officials, lest power be too concentrated in the hands of the few and erode the democratic system. The potential for a surveillance state to form in our country has reached an all-time high. Not even under McCarthy did such blatant violations of privacy and personal freedom occur as do now under what many considered to be one of the most liberal presidents our country has ever had. With these violations occurring under the Obama administration in the same amount (if not more so) then they had under George H. W. Bush, one must wonder if the concept of intrusion in the name of personal security has not become a “necessary evil” for a sitting president to authorize, whether Republican or Democrat. With this “end justifying the means” mindset we should fear for the future of our country and our personal liberties and begin to take steps against potential future incursions on said liberties.