When the President states: "They [the data] may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism," he is tipping his hand. Every police state uses this exact justification: "we only interrogate those who may pose a threat to the state". This can include anyone, as the laughable but disturbing FBI guidelines for spotting potential terrorists makes clear (http://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/). Once the mechanisms and rationales for trimming our rights are in place, limits to abuse rest on the good will of those in power. Consequences for "suspicious" behavior need not be extreme to be dangerous and harmful; for instance, one can lose a job or government contract because of questions raised about one's loyalty, motives, or even presumed lack of discretion.
The warrantless collection of mass data can--and indeed, already has--become an end in itself. The real goal is not preventing terrorism. The TIA approach is a wasteful diversion. It's done because it can be done. It's done because the government and corporations understand that possessing, analyzing, and manipulating information is the key to power in the Information Age. Deprivation of civil liberties is always initially justified as a means of fighting crime. But precedent builds on precedent until rights come to be viewed as a sort of currency: we'll make you safer if you give us more control over your lives. It's a devil's bargain.
That is why the government is always so hot to be granted the powers of warrantless searches. Warrants could allow the government access to Verizon's phone records, for example, if they show cause that a certain pre-specified set of records is relevant for an ongoing investigation. That is legitimate in the pursuit of criminals of all types. It is focused, limited, vetted by more than one arm of government, and based on actual evidence that a criminal act is imminent or underway. It is solid investigatory procedure, with controls against abuse. When the government claims unrestricted and unwarranted access to personal information, it dissolves the protections that warrants, habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, and Miranda rights help establish.
The final kicker is
that everybody knows that the potential for using personal information is only
hinted at by current applications. Much of the future will unfold in the
digital cyber-realm. The real goal of total data sweeps is complete control
over this realm--its norms, environment, highways and byways, and all aspects of
our lives that unfold in cyberspace. Control of information and communication
in this realm will facilitate control over our physical lives. Even if
President Obama would never utilize it thus, he is only the President. The
system is in place and those lining up to use it are, due to numbers and
intrinsic power, beyond the scope of any president to control even if he or she
had the will and inclination to do so. Still, the President of the United States should not be leading the charge.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
