One of the things that constantly amazes me is how lackadaisical most Americans are about their eroding freedoms and right to privacy that has occurred under the Bush Administration.
Case in point: when I brought up in yesterday’s blog post that our spy satellites were now going to be used for domestic surveillance, many people responded with a collective shrug. The idea is that Internet sites such as Google Maps already show satellite photos, so what’s the difference. Well, for one thing, Google Maps shows a static picture taken possibly months or years ago. It can’t tell you how many cars are parked in my driveway right now or when my car leaves. Satellite surveillance can.
Most people seem to respond to that by saying, "Why would they want to spy on me? I lead a boring life, so let them spy if they want. It’s very unlikely they would have any interest in me." Let me point out that it’s also very unlikely that you’re going to be struck by lightning, and yet people are. I’m sure those people never thought that they would be the ones it would happen to.
In order to better illustrate the point I’ve been trying to make, let’s play pretend, shall we? Imagine if you will the following scenario:
Last summer you finally took that trip to England you’ve been wanting to. While in London, you meet a bunch of great people that you become friends with. One of them is named Samad, and while he was born in Morocco, he has lived in London for nearly ten years and is a British citizen. At one point Samad and you stop by his apartment which he shares with his brother and his brother’s friend, both of which you meet but only shortly.
You return home from your trip, but you keep in touch with many of the friends you made there including Samad. You often call or write your new friends in London, and they invite you to come back out . You plan your trip and book your tickets.
Meanwhile, your brother calls you like he does several times a week. Your brother has just learned that he is going to be assigned a big tax penalty by the IRS due to an error in his tax filing, and he’s furious. While venting steam, your brother says in anger how he’d like to blow the whole damn IRS up.
You have a fairly large yard and have been neglecting it for some time other than mowing it. You head up to Home Depot and buy lots of yard materials: rocks, flowers, seed, and fertilizer. You plan on getting to the project this weekend.
You’ve been storing several boxes and furniture in your house for your sister who just went through a messy divorce. She has now bought a new house, so she comes over one evening after work with a U-Haul truck which you two proceed to load up.
Let’s stop right here for a moment. Everything so far sounds fairly ordinary, right? Unfortunately unbeknown to you, the following has been going on:
While you only met him briefly, Samad’s brother’s friend Bahir might be related to someone who has ties to possible terrorists outside of Britain. Bahir has been under surveillance by the CIA for any possible terrorist chatter.
The CIA discovers that there have been several phone calls between Bahir’s place of residence in London and your number in the U.S. The CIA notifies the Department of Homeland Security.
The Department of Homeland Security decides to begin wiretapping your phone line in order to discover the nature of your phone calls to London. No warrant is needed to do this anymore. They discover that you are planning another trip to London. Some of the conversations you have with Samad they don’t understand because you and Samad are referring to inside jokes between you two. The Homeland Security agents try to analyze if your inside jokes are terrorist code.
While wiretapping your line, Homeland Security listens in on your call from your brother in which he says he’d like to blow up the IRS. Concerned, they decide to begin satellite surveillance on your household. They also heard a few intimate and potentially embarrassing calls you made with someone you date.
From the satellite photos they see you carrying several large bags into your house. A day later they see the U-Haul your sister rented being filled with large boxes.
They run a check on your credit cards and find that you purchased several bags of fertilizer which, as everyone knows, was used in the bomb Timothy McVeigh blew up in Oklahoma City. They also see that you purchased a ticket to London.
They do some background checking on your sister. It reveals that the new home she is moving into is only a block away from an IRS office.
A Homeland Security agent begins asking questions about you of your boss and a few of your neighbors. They ask them if they know or have ever seen Samad, his brother, or Bahir with you. One of your neighbors who doesn’t really like you tells them there are constantly strange people coming and going from your place (something he has greatly over exaggerated).
Your name is added to the "no fly" list of passengers because of security concerns.
Wow. A lot has been happening behind the scenes that you were unaware of. You shouldn’t worry though. You’re completely innocent, right? Have is it even occurred to you yet that you’ve already lost your privacy? And all of this is because of a chance encounter you had?
Let’s continue:
Your boss and neighbors start treating you differently. You don’t understand why as they have been advised not to say anything to you. Unfortunately this is good gossip and some of the neighbors start talking to each other about it. They decide that its their "patriotic duty" to keep close tabs on you from now on. You being single and without a family only fuels their suspicions. They make notes of every time you have someone over, and they write down the license plate numbers of any car they see in your driveway. They also snoop around your place from time to time, looking in garage windows, opening your shed out back, etc.
You show up at the airport for your trip and when you get to security you are taken aside for questioning. Some of the other passengers notice this and watch you walk off with security with fear in their eyes. After spending several hours answering questions about your last trip to London, your friend Samad, your connection to Bahir, the fertilizer you purchased, your brother’s statement about the IRS, the boxes you were seen loading up in the U-Haul, your sister and her new house, your background, your job, your travel history since you’ve been an adult, your parents, and just about every other aspect of your life, you are cleared and allowed to travel.
Unfortunately you have already missed your flight and must wait until the following day to leave. Not only does this shave a full day off of your vacation, you also missed canceling your hotel reservation in time since your were being questioned and are now going to be charged for a night you never spent there. Of course the hotel says that if you can mail in sufficient documentation of the reason for your delay to their corporate headquarters, they might be able to get you a refund. You know though that writing the letter and getting the documentation put together will probably be more hassle than just accepting the charge.
When you arrive in London, you get together with all your friends, but Samad is strangely absent. Despite multiple attempts to cont
act him via phone and stop by his apartment, you don’t see him. Worse yet, even after returning home you never hear from him again.
While you were being questioned at the airport, Homeland Security sent agents to question both your brother and sister in order to collaborate your story. They had to spend several hours being pulled from work and questioned too.
Although you become aware that some of your neighbors were interviewed about you by Homeland Security, you don’t know which ones for sure. You explain to the ones you do know as well as your boss that you were mistakenly identified and hope the word catches on. You’re not sure it will, and you’re left to always wonder who knows what and who believes what.
And despite what the government says, you can never really be 100% sure they aren’t still keeping an eye on you.
Now see? That wasn’t so bad. You were innocent and let go. Everything came clean in the wash. Hardly a small price to pay in order to feel safe from terrorists, right? No need to worry about your civil liberties. Besides, lightning will never strike you, will it? That only happens to other people.
UPDATE: The point of this post is neither that this scenario will happen nor is it likely, but that it could happen under the changes that have been made by the Bush Administration. That fact alone should scare you.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Entries (RSS)
You’ve been reading Alan Moore, haven’t you? Great post and a lot of food for thought.
ummm… have you talked to anyone in Hollywood, because this post is better than most movie scripts that have made it to the big screen… lots to digest on a hungover Sunday morning…
Your arguments are very strong. In reality I don’t think people are happy about it, but the people I talk to are unclear as to what they can do about it. How do we fight it? How do we stop what’s already in progress? How do we get them to reverse many of the decisions that have already been made. All of this without becoming an enemy of the people?
i agree with maddog. how can we stop this from happening? i guess some of us feel that it’s almost useless to even rant about it. what difference does it make? there are two sides to the equation: we have the bush administration who thinks the end justifies the means i.e. resorting to even the most obscure, questionable tactics that are disguised under “serving the people” banner. and then we have the people who believe that the government is encroaching our rights with this measure. where do we draw the line? and who’s responsible for doing that? furthermore, how do we make sure that we can trust the people who will make that decision?
okay, this is my first-ever slant at a politics-related post. it was a good break from talking bout dog poop or boybands from the 90s. so yeah, your post is thought-provoking.
I missed your post about the satellites. Believe me, I’m not complacent about such things. But I’m along the lines of Maddog. Resistance makes us a target for surveilance. It’s some dark times; much worse than the McCarthy era.
I missed your post about the satellites. Believe me, I’m not complacent about such things. But I’m along the lines of Maddog. Resistance makes us a target for surveillance. It’s some dark times; much worse than the McCarthy era.
Big Brother is watching us,….became reality
Big brother has been watching us for MANY years (early 60’s at the latest), from ALL parties, Dem and Rep alike. Since we first put photo satellites up in the skies we have had them looking at our own people. Do I agree with this practice? For the most part, no. But do I think it is needed? Yes, in many cases it is. Once the person is found to be “legit” and not a threat, the surveillance should end and everyone should move on. That you are blaming this on Bush is wrong, as Clinton did it, Carter did it, EVERY President has been doing it for years.
Don-
Domestic spying use by those satellites has never been approved until now. Secondly, if the satellites need to be used domestically, shouldn’t a warrant be required?
It has never been released to the US Press, nor had the Press dug it up before, but I can assure you that it has been happening, with the knowledge and consent of the “reigning” President for many, many years.
Yes, if used domestically, a warrant should be required, and in many cases, “classified” warrants have been issued, we would never know that though. (Do I agree with that? In some cases yes, in many cases no. Should the classified ones be released after the case is complete? Most assuredly.)
hhmm,
I’m with Maddog, I hate the idea when I google my address, I can see my window and the lamp that sits in it, In NYC no less !!!!!
At least I’m happy sodomy laws are no longer in affect here in NYC. I can see my Allan and me being led off in our own handcuffs slipping and sliding down the hallway while I ask the officer to put the cap back on the poppers.
I’m curious. If the above scenario still played out but the only difference was that the government agencies DID in fact obtain warrants, would you be OK with the situation? The only thing that really bothers me is the lack of warrants, which speaks of a lack of accountability. If this happened to me, yes I’d be furious at my ruined vacation plans and unnerved that co-workers and neighbors might continue to give me the fish-eye, but I still like the fact that US security was dotting it’s i’s and crossing it’s t’s in regard to potential terrorist activitiy. It’s an ugly world and sometimes that ugliness spills into our own lives. I want my government to be able to justify ever instance in which it invades an individual’s privacy, and I want that justification documented and approved by a separate branch of government, but to flatly refuse them access is dangerous in my mind.
The point of this post is neither that this scenario will happen nor is it likely, but that it could happen under the changes that have been made by the Bush Administration.
And even though it is a bright sunny day with hardly a cloud in the sky, I could still be struck by lightning; therefore I’d better not go outside.
But maybe the lightning bolt will come in the window…..so I’d better hide under the bed.
But what if the lightning bolt goes under the bed…..so I’d better surround myself with conductive metal rods and a ground.
Which brings us to my statement: at which point does obsessing about a event that COULD happen, but that one admits is not likely, become unhealthy and counterproductive?
I think we now know.
North Dallas Thirty-
The difference is that unlike lightning, this can be controlled. Until recently it took a second set of eyes, that of a (hopefully) impartial judge, to make sure that one’s rights were protected and the surveillance was done according to the law.
To compare it to lightning, it would be as if at one time we could control lightning strikes, or at minimum, have someone ensure that the least amount of damage or harm would come to the individual being struck.
David-
For the most part, yes, my main concern is that this process of surveillance does not have the oversight of judicial warrants. The potential for abuse is ripe. Our founding fathers were very careful in setting up a government in which every branch had a counterbalance to prevent such abuses. Warrantless wiretapping and surveillance does not have that safety guard to protect the rights of the individual.
I need to do some research on this, but back in the late 90’s there was a case in front of the Supreme Court which involved a person who had been filmed on a security camera while in public. I don’t know the details (hence the need for research), but the Supreme Court ruled that the camera was legal because in public, one must assume their actions aren’t private. The flip-side to that ruling however was that it was implied that in our own residences, we were entitled to privacy. The overturn of the sodomy laws in Texas involved that same principle. The government does not have the right to spy on us in our own homes.
Terrorists are bad. Terrorists are scary. Terrorists need to be stopped. My questions is, how far are we going to go in letting the government snoop into whatever aspect of our lives they feel like WITHOUT WARRANTS in the effort to fight terrorism. Again, I have to agree with Ben Franklin when he said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In regards to many people’s comments here, I seem to be hearing the idea that the surveillance in this case was justified because there was a possible tie to terrorism.
My question would be, what happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty? It would seem that some of you are advocating that trampling a person’s rights is okay because they could be guilty. That’s not how our system works, and hence the need for judicial oversight via warrants to ensure a person’s rights are being protected.
My question would be, what happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty?
This is the standard for someone accused of a crime, not for the gathering of evidence. If you had no ability to collect the best possible evidence, then no guilty person would ever be brought to justice in the first place. The more salient phrase is “probable cause,” not “innocent until proven guilty.”
Malcontent-
Would you agree that there should be a judicial review via requiring a warrant to determine probable cause? There are judges out there that are approved to review highly classified cases.
keep writing
we need people like you.
[...] received a fair amount of flak about the blog post I wrote over the weekend entitled "Let’s Pretend." In it I imagined a situation in which, through a random encounter, you become the [...]
[...] an email from Scott seeking my input since he’d received a fair amount of flack regarding a post he’d written, asking if I thought he sounded like a tinfoil-hat-wearing [...]
[...] I mentioned earlier after writing my post "Let’s Pretend," I was accused by some neocons of being a tin foil hat-wearing paranoid freak. I [...]