Below is today’s column in USA Today (the print version is a bit shorter). The column looks at the effort of President Barack Obama and his congressional allies to get citizens to give up privacy as they did protections of the free press, due process, and international legal principles on earlier scandals. It is truly the final measure of devotion demanded in what has become a virtual cult of personality.
Over the course of five years, President Obama has demanded much from his supporters from promising not to prosecute officials for torture to ordering warrantless surveillance to the quashing of dozens of public interest lawsuits seeking judicial review of his policies to the recent attack on the free press. He even claimed, under his “Kill List” policy , the right to kill any U.S. citizen that he believes to be a threat to the United States. Yet, most Democrats stuck with Obama. Now, however, Obama is demanding the final measure of devotion — he is asking supporters to abandon privacy principles in a move that will fundamentally alter our society. Indeed, he and congressional allies are trying to convince Americans that they can free themselves of fear by simply redefining privacy in a new and surveillance friendly image.
At issue are massive surveillance programs through which the administration has seized data on every call made by every citizen. At the same time, data on millions of emails are being stored showing addresses, subject lines, and attachments. The effort allows citizens to be tracked in their associations and communications. In other words, total transparency of citizens in a new fishbowl society. In response to the outcry last week, Obama and others assured citizens that they have nothing to fear from the government collecting their calls and data. It was like a scene out of the movie The Matrix with politicians trying to convince people to give up their fears and learn to love living in the artificial environment created for them. Of course, as with the prior notions of the free press and the unilateral use of lethal force, people have to surrender prior notions of privacy. Obama explained these are just modest intrusions in the new concept of government-approved privacy. He insisted that so long as the government did not read your emails or listen to your calls, there is no danger to privacy. Likewise, Sen. Lindsay Graham scoffed at the notion of any concern over privacy so long as you don’t call a terrorist.
It is true that the Supreme Court in 1979 ruled that there is less protection afforded to phone numbers, which can be acquired under “pen registers.” Yet, even accepting that ill-conceived decision in Smith v. Maryland, the Court was addressing government seizure of numbers to individuals who become material to investigations. The government previously used “national security letters” to get such information. What the Obama administration has done is effectively issue a national security letter for every citizens in America. Recently, the Obama administration admitted to putting reporters under surveillance and seizing such information in what is viewed by many as an extreme attack on the principles of the free press. Many citizens remained quiet as the administration called reporters potential criminals for speaking with sources in the administration. Then, they learned the government was gathering the same information from them and all other citizens.
The new privacy model would protect only the content of your emails and calls — unless the government wants to read them. Before we are lulled back to sleep by our leaders, it is worth noting what you are about to give up.
The government has been secretly collecting all of your contacts from your intimate friends to political associations to doctors to product suppliers. Thus, if you are a government employee seeking information on being a whistleblower, your effort to reach lawyers or whistleblower groups will be seized.
Consider who you have called or emailed in the last month. The government can learn a great deal about you from just the people you call and subjects of your emails. Your “metadata” can reveal peculiar tastes and associations that you may consider hidden from all but your closest friends – and now a few thousand government monitors. The government will now know not only who you are calling but how long you are speaking, how often you call people or groups, where you call from, and even attachments like photos that you send. Ironically, the actual content of your calls or emails are usually not needed to determine the reason and subject of such communications. When you call an abortion clinic repeatedly or a medical marijuana resource line, the likely purpose of the call is self-evident. For citizens with unpopular political or religious views, repeated calls or emails to certain churches or groups indicate an obvious interest. From intimate affairs to political associations, the purpose of most communications are self-evident, particularly when they are placed within a mosaic of all of your contacts and calls.
In his press conference, Obama repeated the siren call of all authoritarian figures throughout history: while these powers are great, our motives are benign. So there you have it. The government is promising to better protect you if you just surrender this last measure of privacy. Perhaps it is time. After all, it was Benjamin Franklin who warned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
JUNE 10, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/prism-program-obama_n_3416973.html
Obama administration officials held 22 separate briefings or meetings for members of Congress on the law that has been used to justify the National Security Agency’s controversial email monitoring program, according to data provided by a senior administration official
Let’s not just put this on Prez. Obama
I had wondered if someone would take it into their heads to sue wrongdoers in this affair.
Sure enough….
http://www.scribd.com/doc/146930457/PRISM-Class
LARRY KLAYMAN,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NWSuite 800Washington, DC 20006
And
CHARLES AND MARY ANN STRANGE,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs, v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NWWashington, DC 20500and
ERIC HIMPTON HOLDER, JR.,
555 Fourth St. NWWashington, DC 20530and
KEITH B. ALEXANDER Director of the National Security Agency,
9800 Savage Rd.Fort Meade, MD 20755and
LOWELL C. McADAM,
Chief Executive Officer of Verizon Communications
140 West Street New York, NY 10007and
ROGER VINSON,Judge,
U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NWWashington, DC 20530
And
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS,
140 West Street New York, NY 10007and
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Director of the National Security Agency,9800 Savage Rd.Fort Meade, MD 20755and
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NWWashington, DC 20530
Defendants
If I lose important data I just pick up the phone and call the fusion center to have it retrieved. That’s why I love the surveillance state.
nick,
I know stories (detailed insider information type stories that I’m not going to repeat online) about phone companies from both pre- and post-9/11 that would make your hair curl. And probably make you go out and burn all your phones and possibly your computers too. Just Google “echelon project” and “carnivore project” if you want a taste. I’m not shocked by the revelations about the NSA simply because it’s not such a secret that they’ve been working on these capabilities (in close conjunction with the telcos btw) for years. Well before 9/11.
OS,
The linked story has a valid point and the author a great nickname. i grew up with both computers and networking. They were both emergent technologies in my formative years. And to think some wonder that I leave a relatively small digital footprint. It’s because I’ve known all along: there is no such thing as perfect digital security. Never has been, and unless quantum computing throws something counter-intuitive into the deck (which it could), there never will be.
Gene, A good point. When I would get people’s phone records I had to have sources in many phone companies. I never had sources in all of them. Well, the NSA is now the Costco of phone records. All you need is one source and you can get ANYONES records. And, as stated previously, I am certain that has been going on for some time. Knowledge is power. And people can be bought, or just schmoozed in some cases. I don’t think anyone can argue w/ those last 2 assertions.
Gene,
I agree with that observation. Looks as if C. Northcote Parkinson’s law can be interpreted as applying to information stashes and disclosure risk as well.
Politicians, bureaucrats and others of that ilk seem unable to wrap their heads around it. There are no secrets any more. Secrecy is a delusion and HIPAA be damned. User “Brainwrap” at Daily Kos is a website developer and has an interesting insider’s viewpoint on the myth of privacy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/09/1214865/-Online-data-spying-from-a-website-developer-s-POV?detail=hide
Gyges, I never even hinted I was “spotless” because I was not. There is no PI or investigative reporter who is “spotless.” Hell, are there any “spotless” people in any profession?
Gyges,
I’ll stipulate to your supplemental quibbling.
And yes, I did. I’m going to try to pick that up next weekend. Speaking of reading, I also noticed some Alistair Reynolds on your GoodReads list. Let me know what you think of him. He’s one of my favorites. Scotland is putting out some unusually good SF writers as of late.
I’m also assuming that since you also had some Iain Banks on there recently that you may have heard the cancer finally got him. Dead at 59. A sad loss to the literary world that.
I had sources in both the public and private sectors that gave or sold me info they should not have.
Can I just say how much I love the construction of this sentence? I mean, here you are admitting to do something completely immoral, and yet you remain spotless, because hey they “gave” you the information. YOU didn’t have any agency, it was all the other people.
I live down the street from a retired government official, and he’s always trying to stop me and tell me stuff about my neighbors when I’m walking my dogs. It’s ridiculous.
Sorry, Tony.
I’ve got to side with nick and ST on this matter for the following reason.
The probability that confidential information will be misused by any party and/or organization increases with both the size of the available pool of data and the number of actors who have access to said data. This applies to both public and private institutions. It’s a reflection of complexity in action. Complex data sets interacting with complex organizations are a mathematical recipe for error. Error which in this case equates to data misappropriated to nefarious ends either institutionally or by individuals within an institution or having institutional access to said data.
As stated previously, I had sources in both the public and private sectors that gave or sold me info they should not have. The public sector were MUCH more willing to betray the trust they were given. And they could be bought cheap. Some of the women could just be bought w/ a smile and some flirting.
Gene,
2) Not necessarily. There is a high probability the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is not a certainty.
Well, if we REALLY want to get technical about it, the sun isn’t going to rise tomorrow, instead the rotation of Earth (most likely) will make it appear to an observer on Earth that the sun is rising. Which is what the vast majority of people mean when they say that the sun will rise, but if we’re going to quibble, let’s quibble right.
BTW, speaking of entropy, did you get that book recommendation I sent you?
Bron, You’re dealing w/ moral relativists. I had a history teacher of that ilk. They’re like Moonies only they don’t shave their heads and they are allowed in airports.
Tony C, Of course you know much more than I. You are much smarter than I. It is a distinct honor to even be on the same thread as you. I just like to deal in reality, you like to deal in abstract. Look somewhere else. I’ve forgotten more on this subject than you will ever know. Here’s the very fundamental point that seems to have missed your superior mind. I’m saying the mere obtaining of confidential information is an abuse. I got info I NEVER should have gotten. And so do thousands of people on a daily basis. You’re just looking for some academic theoretical horseshit fight. I prefer reality, try it sometime.
ST,
The limit is two links per post.
Tony C,
That’s quite a straw man you have there.
I read Nick to say that information will be abused by someone.
You read him to say that any government employee will abuse information.
The questions are:
1) What scope of information should be collected on the general population – and for what purposes?
2) Who should have access to this information or subsets of this information?
3) What checks and controls are in place to ensure that any access to the information/subsets is logged and properly authorised?
The current answers seem to be
1) Unlimited – except by whatever technology can be put in place.
2) Anyone with a certain *global* clearance for whatever level of sensitivity – regardless if their function requires view of all subsets of the information up tp that level.
3) Going by Manning and maybe Snowden – no real control apart from a global clearance level.
On (2): This includes a huge number of private contractors.
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-booz-allen-hamilton-contractors
That’s over 8000 civilians with Top Secret ot higher in just one single private contractor.
.
http://www.wired dot com/threatlevel/2012/07/security-clearances-increasing/
(munged because I don’t remember how many links we are allowed here)
.
What are the chances of some of those 5 million people abusing their access?
Bron,
1) You score with that one. Everything that has a beginning has an end, including the universe. That’s entropy at work.
2) Not necessarily. There is a high probability the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is not a certainty.
3) Only in biomes where chlorophyll is used in photosynthesis. Other biomes may rely upon completely different chemistry.
4) No, it’s not. Heavy water is D2O, but it is still water.
5) No. A rock at height merely has potential energy, but it will not fall to the ground until that potential is realized.
Try again.
Keep in mind that quantum mechanics tells us reality is a probability matrix. Nothing is absolutely certain. Everything is only highly probable or highly improbable at the extremes.
tony c:
you are absolutely going to die at some time in the future.
the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
grass is green.
water is comprised of H2O always.
A rock absolutely will fall from a height to the ground [unless acted on by another force which is an absolute as well, that a force acting on an object will influence it.]
Good luck.
Rafflaw, yes, and yes yes.
Furthermore, the presidency has been “cult of personality” ever since the broadcast media took us over, around the time of that movie about the pods. Can’t be otherwise. Which is half of why the Republicans could not put up a candidate who could at least speak rationally: they were looking for cult leaders and they had a limited range of what kinds of characters COULD lead their version of the cult.
I loved the sentence Obama said — paraphrased —
Well if you can’t trust the Executive Branch, and then you don’t trust Congress, and you don’t trust our federal judges, to use the Constitution to govern us with due process, then WE ARE GOING TO BE IN TROUBLE…”
“Gonna be?”
“Gonna be?”
Hello … Hello … anybody home?