Safety Through Surveillance

There is substantial controversy in the United States as a result of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Bush Administration's push for increased surveillance with greater scope and less oversight. Typically, this move is attacked by libertarians and liberals as an attack on Constitutionally guaranteed freedom, while supported by conservatives as necessary to protect the US from terrorist attack. One can argue that the increased surveillance is unneeded due to the powers granted by the FISA along with the fact that it clearly violates the Fourth Amendment. The counterargument is that, aside from protecting us, this vast expansion of government power will not do any real harm so long one is doing nothing that should cause fear. This claim is clearly false for a number of reasons, besides the clear cowardice that hands over the rights so many have died to give and protect. To more clearly show them, it is easier to create a hypothetical, but plausible, scenario describing their possible ramifications of that surveillance, some of the precedents set by the current administration, and in conjunction with decisions being made regarding communications, especially the Internet.

One of the possible outcomes of the election is that Hillary Clinton manages to receive the Democratic nomination after a difficult and, especially on her part, bitter lead up to the convention. Following that nomination, another hard fought and equally bitter election ends with Hillary becoming the first woman president in our history. The difficulty of the campaign season adds another layer of anger to a woman that appears to wield substantial rage at the political system, believes in the conspiracy against her, and prefers to be in control.

During the same period, communication has increasingly moved to the Internet and mobile phones with little or weak encryption. The House finally rolls over and gives the Executive essentially unlimited power to surveil any communication that crosses any US telecommunications network. Additionally, no member of the Administration is ever punished by the Congress for refusing to testify, for false testimony, or any other wrongdoing. With those four events, the first of which is given and the second will likely result due to the sacrifice of strength of character and what is right to the altar of political expediency, the stage is set for an Executive to abuse the system at will.

Hillary has shown a tendency, as displayed in her "vast right-wing conspiracy" speech, to view anyone with the audacity to defy her as an enemy. The Bush Administration has provided her with the tools to ensure that the ringleaders of her opposition are punished severely, and that little, perhaps nothing, can be done to stop her. The first and most apparent of these is the ability to hear and read every communication of everyone in general, or anyone in specific. That includes any already existing documentation. Ever wonder if James Dobson or any other conservative Christian leader does anything naughty? No worries, if they do you will know after those tapes and hard drives are gone over with the utmost care, and if there is nothing there, you can guarantee they will be watched closely. Even if they, or any of the rest of her "enemies" are pure as the driven snow, niceties like guilt are unnecessary. Only the perception of impropriety is needed to ruin political or religious careers, especially if one can drum up enough media coverage.

Government officials are not immune to this either. Suddenly, opponents of an Administration's pet bill is no longer against the idea, or perhaps those legislators deemed undesirable start retiring suddenly. Potential whistleblowers would become even less likely to come forward in, not only the government, but also well connected companies. The temptation to abuse this system is powerful, and that abuse would, as is often the case, start with good intentions. To get important legislation passed perhaps, or prevent a successful antiterrorist program from being compromised.

This type of attention would not necessarily be limited to the prominent leaders of groups against her. It could just as easily be used to find those with grass roots influence, local party or church leaders, for instance, or bloggers with decent readerships. All of them are at least as susceptible to innuendo as the state and national level players. Entire churches could be targets, also. How many of them are unaware of or ignore that federal law allows them to have their tax exempt status removed or be financially penalized if they promote or oppose a candidate.

Not only will the power to pursue vendettas or exert greater control exist, it will be virtually impossible to prevent or punish perpetrators. Time and again documents have been sought and suits brought against the current administration with a response that national security is at stake. In addition, every time Congress has requested sworn testimony one aide after another has refused claiming executive privilege with the backing of the administration. The ability to maintain this response is helped by politicizing the entire branch, creating an atmosphere in which loyalty to the administration is the most important personal characteristic of the bureaucracy, a feature that is easily repeatable.

Of course this assumes a top-down conspiracy that is simply unnecessary. A typical argument supporting mass surveillance and databases full of information on Americans is that the average citizen is simply not interesting to the government. That may be the case, but what about to organizations making money in the identity market? Jon Stokes, in an article on Ars Technica, outlines a case of a drug dealer used the FBI's National Crime Information Center to stay free for quite some time. It only cost him $18,000 to get that access. Stokes goes on to explain how useful a centralized government database is to the criminal elements. That is in addition to less nefarious abuses by those analyzing the data potentially using it against members of their communities, a less likely but possible scenario.

Perhaps none of this will ever happen, perhaps everyone involved will limit their use of surveillance to preventing terrorist attacks, catching Internet pedophiles, drug dealers, and organized crime bosses. The odds of that being the case cannot be good. Regardless of intent, there is a reason limits on government power were put in place initially, and have been reinforced on occasion since, including on some of the very powers we are giving the government back now. One need only research J. Edgar Hoover for a good example of the abuse of power possible. Given the massive improvement in technology since his reign, what he could have done now boggles the mind.

The potential abuse of such a system is candidate, party, and ideology blind. Anyone in power once it is in place has the potential to abuse it, and some will say, "so what, it still keeps us safe." Bruce Schneier wrote an article that deals a hefty blow to that argument. This surveillance and its accompanying database are much more likely to waste valuable manhours in false leads and, as our nature is to put faith in technology, minimize the leads that turn up from traditional police work. In the end, proponents of this system would rather freely give up their rights, won on bloody battlefields, so that they can sleep a little easier. Its funny that these same people trust the benevolent hand of government enough to dig into every aspect of theirs lives, because it protects them from terrorists, but then turn around to say it cannot be trusted for health care or to hand in their guns. Anyone else smell the irony?

Hillary Clinton First Lady's CounteroffensiveLeany

J. Edgar HooverWikipedia

Bruce Schneier We're Giving Up Privacy and Getting Little in ReturnSchneier

Jon Stokes Analysis: Metcalf's Law + REAL ID = more crime, less safety Ars Technica

Religion, Partisan Politics, and Tax Exemption: What Federal Law Requires and WhyAmericans United for Separation of Church and State