It’s a great lyric from “The Police” and I could image it coming from some creepy villain in a movie as he whispers it over the phone to his next young teenage victim. It’s a little hard to hear from your government.
The Washington Post reported that the Obama administration, the same friendly looking guy who wanted to “Keep hope alive” is looking to make it easier for the FBI to force companies to turn over the Internet activities of individuals. There are a couple of tried and true lines of reasoning the FBI and other law enforcement agencies like to use. The first is “If you are doing nothing wrong then why would you have a problem with us watching over your shoulder as you search the Internet.” The other is that “We need every tool available to search, find and destroy terrorism”. You can go back to the 1960’s and replace terrorism with “communism” or go back to the declaration of independence and replace it with “the rebels”. Panicking a population in order to force a piece of legislation should always set off alarm bells. Think back to the bank bailout and post 9/11.
The FBI would like to be able to demand this information carte blanche by adding the words "electronic communication transactional records" to be included in the type of information they can demand without seeking a judge’s approval. This, of course, circumvents due process and many Internet Service Providers have fought these demands. The FBI has also included the provision that the Information Service Providers keep these requests secret, of course for national security reasons, but this stops any type of oversight or accountability.
On September 20th the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department says that FBI probes have been improper. The FBI had targeted left-leaning groups that were planning on protesting the Iraq war and placed them on terrorist watch lists. This meant that if you now practiced your first amendment rights in a way that the government found suspicious, you could be labeled a terrorist and placed on an FBI watch list. The practice of activism should not, in my opinion, be enough to warrant investigation or the assumption of guilt.
Intellectual Freedom doesn’t feel quite as free when you can be labeled a terrorist because of what you read and write. The Orwellian shadow of a watchful government has a chilling effect on the curious mind. Most of us understand that it is inappropriate to peer through our neighbor’s windows, is it too much to ask that our government do the same?
Works Cited:
Markon, Jerry. "FBI probes were improper, Justice says." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - The Washington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 June 2011.
Nakashima, Ellen. "White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - The Washington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 June 2011.
And people wonder why I'm so cynical when it comes to politicians...it doesn't seem to matter who you vote in, they all seem to do this, don't they?
ReplyDeleteNow that I've given the FBI a reason to watch me with the above, I might as well go all out and say that I think governments have become more and more paranoid. Think of this incident, and French President Sarkozy's pressure for more international governmental control of the Internet, and China's crackdown on Google...it seems to get worse and worse. Yet the Internet has also played a big part in other countries' liberation and freedom--look at Egypt. It seems that the U.S. should be doing more than encouraging other countries to gain democracy--they should be setting the example by not intimidating citizens by watching over their shoulders. What I'm doing may not be wrong but it's none of their business if I choose to look up information they might find "suspicious". Like in _Little Brother_, I can see how a paranoid government could easily arrest first and ask questions later. Just because I know how to make a genuine shrunken head--yes, I really do have a book that walks me through the basic steps--doesn't mean I'm going to do it.
My boyfriend was--and maybe still is, for all we know--actually on an FBI watch list because he belonged to, of all things, the Star Trek fan club. This "radical" group was actually considered a fringe element worth watching in the 70s--can you imagine? Is this paranoid, or what?
And another scary thought--if ISPs are expected to keep this information somehow, and if they turn it over to the government, how do I know what personal information is going where? Is the FBI going to snag my passwords from all my accounts, my credit card number from Amazon, will they see my grades? (OK, I'm proud of my IUPUI transcript--they can look at that if they want to.) :) But the fact that this could happen without being told that it will prior to the action is indeed chilling.
I don't understand this concept of fighting "terror". You may be able to fight terrorists but fighting "terror"--an intangible concept that could cover anything from suicide bombers to my sister's arachnophobia--is impossible. There will always be things out there that inspire terror. Right now, the thought of the government "peeking through" my Internet window inspires terror.
While reading your post all I could think of was Orwell's 1984. I'm glad you mentioned it at the end. It seems that since 9/11 we've slowly been losing rights to fight the terrorists. Some have said that they are willing to sacrifice some rights to keep most rights. However, I feel like it's going too far. I'm fine with them making me take off my shoes at the airport, but really, can't I just research whatever I want on the Internet?
ReplyDeleteI actually was reminded of "Little Brother" as I read this. One passage in particular, when the "severe haircut lady" is interrogating Marcus:
ReplyDelete"We want to be sure that you're what you seen to be. This is about your security, Marcus. Say you're innocent. You might be, though why an innocent man would act like he's got so much to hide is beyond me." (p. 54)
I thought people were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but this type of mentality - this need to invade every aspect of our private lives to ferret out terrorism - seems more as if the government presumes guilt first. As the quote above demonstrates, it's as if they feel that just because a person does not want their privacy invaded, they MUST be hiding something sinister.
The more power someone has the more it can be abused. Government was originally established to ensure that no one person had too much power in order to protect the freedom of all. Now it seems as if the government branches, that are supposed to be checks and balances for each other, are banning together to create a powerful, ruling entity. Cassaundra is right—there are no good electoral choices. I think this is where librarians have a very important role as information specialists. We need to give people opportunities to gain knowledge of what is occurring in all levels of government. Public awareness is the only way to combat concerning legislation. People need to be willing to listen and see all that goes on in today’s world. If you voted for Obama fine, but if he does something you don’t agree with don’t put on blinders and continue saying he is great. All people, all candidates are fallible—it’s human nature. If we want to protect our rights to information and privacy we must pay attention and act.
ReplyDeleteAnne, what a great point! I agree that public awareness is the best way to combat legislation such as this. Although this has little to do with the library, there was a recent ruling that Indiana residents cannot resist police if they attempt to unlawfully enter their homes. I think it is so important for law enforcement to go through the proper channels before jumping to conclusions and persecuting innocent people or denying them the right to protect their privacy.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this, as I was unaware of it and would like to keep an eye on this issue. I agree with many of the above comments, in general, and feel like the government is starting to take advantage of their power to start taking away the very freedoms they are sworn to protect in the constitution. Throughout history there are cases of governments becoming paranoid and spying on their own citizens, and that definitely never seems to end well. I understand that the government needs information in order to hunt down "terrorists", but I do not feel like it should come at the cost of all citizens' privacy.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post. How much do we let our government look over our shoulder or tap into our phone line? Where is the line? I think protestors being on a terrorist watch list are a little much. This would affect those protestors from being able to fly. They would be the ones pulled out of the security line and questioned, at random. I understand the reasoning behind trying to keep your country safe. But are we keeping our country safe from the enemy or from ourselves?
ReplyDelete