Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

I’d Rather Be Spied on Than Dead or Out of Work

If you don’t want your life to be an open book, move to the Seychelles

August 2007 By Denny Hatch
22

In the News

Bush Signs Law to Widen Legal Reach for Wiretapping
WASHINGTON—President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants. Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.
—James Risen, The New York Times, August 6, 2007
The year was 1987. Democratic presidential front-runner Gary Hart was rumored to be having an extramarital fling. “Follow me around. I don’t care. I’m serious,” he challenged the media. “If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They’ll be very bored.”

A couple of Miami Herald reporters did indeed put a tail on Hart and found a yummy blonde named Donna Rice. Shortly thereafter, a photo surfaced of Hart and Rice canoodling in the Bahamas aboard a yacht, aptly named Monkey Business.

Hart not only lost his front-runner status, he was no longer a runner at all. He also opened Pandora’s box—giving the green light for the media to spy on politicians’ private lives, which were theretofore pretty much off-limits.

Unlike Gary Hart, I haven’t asked anyone to spy on me.

Yet know I am being spied on—by government, by business, by marketers—and were I holding down a real job in a real office, my employer would be spying on me.

And I am glad of it.

Quite simply, we are all being spied on. Get used to it.

Can We Trust Big Brother?
Let me say at the outset, I do not trust big government. For example, In the past two weeks:

• Investigators have begun this morning to try to determine the cause of a highway bridge collapse in Minneapolis that has killed at least seven people and injured more than 60. Officials warn that the death toll is likely to climb today as divers search dozens of cars submerged in the Mississippi River. “This is a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota,” Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty said Wednesday, hours after the busy bridge over Interstate 35W collapsed during the evening rush hour.
—William M. Welch; Alan Gomez; USA Today, August 2, 2007

• A federal judge held the FBI “responsible for the framing of four innocent men” in a 1965 gangland murder in a landmark ruling yesterday and ordered the government to pay the men $101.7 million for the decades they spent in prison. The award is believed to be the largest of its kind nationally.
—Shelly Murphy and Brian R. Ballou, The Boston Globe, July 27, 2007

• Australia’s top law enforcement authorities have been forced into a humiliating admission that they wrongly arrested, charged and threw into a jail a young Indian doctor, Mohamed Haneef, whom they thought was connected with terrorist attacks in Britain.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

• We are all being spied on—by government, by marketers, by employers.

• On myriad databases—governmental and private—are electronic dossiers on all of us. Not only is our contact information available, but also purchasing habits, demographics, psychographics, financial and credit situation, career path and legal difficulties (if any).

• This information is rocketed around the country up to 100 times a day or more.

• “My advice: Don’t write anything in an e-mail that you wouldn’t want to see on your office bulletin board—or hear announced over your company’s loudspeaker.”
—Carol Kleiman

• If you don’t want your life to be an open book, sell everything and move to the Seychelles.

• When the choice comes down to being killed or giving up some of their civil liberties to make it possible for the government to track terrorists, the majority of Americans prefer the latter.

• If you are running for president, don’t have a yummy blonde on the side. If you do, do not invite the press to put a tail on you.

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

• American Society for Industrial Security
http://www.asisonline.org/

• ABC News Poll on SpyCams
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3422372&page=1

• The Rules of Monitoring Your Employees’ E-mail, Voicemail, Telephone and Internet
http://tinyurl.com/bmg2b

• The Scramble to Protect Personal Information
http://www.e-commercealert.com/article687.html

• Five Ways to Keep Your Google Searches Private
http://tinyurl.com/yse8kv

• How to Digitally Hide (Somewhat) in Plain Sight
http://tinyurl.com/2h3466

• How to Protect Your Private Information
http://tinyurl.com/yuhjdm

• 6 Tips To Protect Online Search Privacy
http://tinyurl.com/262pap

• ‘UnGoogleables’ Hide From Search
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2005/10/68998
 

Companies Mentioned:
22

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Mark - Posted on August 09, 2007
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

I don't think Mr. Hatch is talking about liberty - I think he's talking about privacy. There's a significant difference (and I would happily give up a little privacy for a little security).
Kevin - Posted on August 08, 2007
I would like to briefly respond to Mr. Hatch?s last posting.

Your say you believe it is imperative that ?the terrorists be found?. Do you think those who disagree with you don?t and are not as sickened of the events of 9/11 as you? If someone made the argument that we should start bombing the countries where those terrorists came from and begin forming detention camps here, would he or she (following your logic) be on higher ground than you?

Another point, you decry those demanding ?privacy?. That word only appeared on three comments, and two of those agreed with you!

A quote from the WSJ opinion page is hardly a way to bolster your argument. And wouldn?t any serious reader of history find that Pollyanna view of power laughable?

I can?t speak for Justice Scalia, but I would hope that any case before him would be decided using judicial temperament based on facts and law.

Finally the Founding Fathers? I think the Benjamin Franklin quote Mrs. Parker sited is a good indicator.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

Finally, I think it's important to not demonize those who disagree with us, or question their motives.
DT - Posted on August 08, 2007
Denny, I love your column, so it pains me to take issue with you, but I'm afraid I must.

In his book "The Law," economic journalist Frederick Bastiat observed that "unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others."

I would remind you that the first arrest made under the Patriot Act - which was passed to fight terrorism, was made against a San Diego man for selling pornography.

Despite all the regulatory safeguards and prohibitions that were in place, IRS employees were discovered a few years back to be freely plying through and sharing tax records of people they had no authority to check on.

Not so long ago the Social Security Administration was caught confirming information for creditors about the clients they were charged by law to protect.

The record is replete with examples of misuse of protected information by the FBI and even the White House. We've forgotten why we passed laws protecting our privacy in the first place.

As Bastiat put it:
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?
Denny Hatch - Posted on August 08, 2007
I do not often reply to reader comments. In the column I have my say and the comment section is for the readers to reply--pro or con--to me or to each other. However, I believe it is imperative that terrorists be found and tracked--their phone calls, money transfers, e-mails and travels. It is easy to take the civil liberties high road by demanding "privacy"--a word that appears in neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution of the United States. Those in such high dudgeon over government spying are looking at 9/11 from distance--through the wrong end of a telescope. What if you had a telescope on 9/11 and focused on the faces peering out of a smashed plate glass window of the top floor of South Tower, where you identified the face a loved one--a spouse, child, a parent--terror-stricken in the last moments of life? Anyone involved in that scenario, I believe, would insist that this carnage must never happen again--whatever it takes. Today's edition of The Wall Street Journal (August 8, 2007) agrees with this and allays the fears of an evil, prying government by saying," As for the possibility that Presidents will abuse this power, fear of exposure is an even more powerful disincentive than legal constraint. The political costs of being seen as spying on Americans for partisan ends would be tremendous." Maybe this whole thing will have to be decided by the Supreme Court. How would Antonin Scalia rule--a man that was within spitting distance of where American Airlines flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11? How would his doctrine of "originalism" square with the kind of enemies the Founding Fathers never dreamed of--suicide bombers that will be rewarded with the eternal pleasures of 72 virgins? The Chinese proverb, "May you live in interesting times," is operative here. Alas, we do.
David - Posted on August 07, 2007
I'm generally pretty liberal which means, among other things, that I don't like being spied on by the government. However, I have no problem with datamining of information that's already out there. Any one of us would throw up red flags once in awhile, but there should still be probable cause.

For instance, if you suspect someone of growing marijuana in their basement, compare their electric bill to their neighbors. Grow lights use a lot of electricity. But is a high electric bill probable cause? Perhaps it is when lumped with other factors.

The spying idea still makes me nervous though. As a reporter, I do a lot of research on the Internet, so it takes me places I might not go if I wasn't working on a story. Should I be judged by my research? What if I go someplace unknowingly? What if my nephew visits and uses my computer and downloads music files illegally? There are just so many things that a person could get in trouble for when they had no intent or no knowledge regarding the activity.

So, I guess my reaction is that anything public ought to be very public. Let us all have a look at it. We are the government, right? Or at least let us look at our own files. Some of this needs to open up for technology to continue to improve our lives. I want my computer to tell me when I'm low on peanut butter and to e-mail that information to my phone while I'm at the grocery store. And when the store scans my card, the clerk can tell me, "Hey, this is the fifth tub of peanut butter you've bought this month."

Sometimes, datamining and compilation can make us more free.
Jeff Bryant - Posted on August 07, 2007
Your character count did not permit me to provide a link to the NYC Republican Convention incident I describe below. Here it is:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/07/3039/
Fred Lederman - Posted on August 07, 2007
Denny-

Good grief!! What is in the Philadelphia water supply?

Let us all not forget the Declaration of Independence of our great country and our right to ??life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?.

As citizens we do have inalienable rights and we must protect them at all costs. Before our politicians put the people who elected them to office under a microscope, they need to go through the same level of scrutiny. Opening that closet will unleash a mountain of bones that would encompass every frailty and sin known to man.

As an amateur historian, I support the belief that inspired our forefathers to create the Gadsden flag. I?m sure you are familiar with its slogan ?Don?t tread on me?.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html

Concerning our government?s vaulted clandestine ability to spy on criminals, let?s start with an easy question. Why can?t they find a fifty year old, 160 pound, left handed, bearded male of between 6?4? and 6?6? wearing a turban having Type 1 diabetes, kidney problems, osteoporosis and walks with a cane living in the sparsely populated mountain region of Afghanistan and Pakistan?
http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_binladen.htm

Let?s get into some meatier subjects like should America?s business leaders unify to rid Congress of its entire pork pulling politicians and sponsor a third political party?
http://www.unity08.com/node/1633

As always, have a great day and keep up the good work!
JP - Posted on August 07, 2007
Couldn't disagree more. The lack of logic is astounding: "If mining my data, surveillance of my phone records, monitoring my Web activities and tracking my movements with spy cams will keep me safe, so be it."

The key word is "If." You advocate giving up over 200 years of American Constitutional law on a "maybe"? What if all those violations of civil liberties do nothing to make you "safer" but simply shred the fundamental American principle of due process under law?

More likely, that glut of data will just overwhelm the law enforcement agencies whose job it is to sift through it.

To say you have nothing to hide so you don't care is to welcome a police state and to spit in the face of every patriot who ever sacrificed for this country. Civil liberties are not icing on the cake, they are the fundamental values that define us as a nation. But too many of us have been scared out of being Americans.

The powerful, the cowardly and the paranoid people who push these unlawful tactics see not only terrorists, but anyone whose opinion differs from theirs, as the enemy. This is Pandora's box presented as a quick fix solution.
Bonnie - Posted on August 07, 2007
I heartily agree with Kevin. Looks like you've bought into the fear mentality that the current administration is so adept at cultivating -- these are the people that are spying on the Quakers, for God's sake.
As for 9/11, a quick read of Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan" might help regain some balance.
Bonnie Benson
Scott Melrose - Posted on August 07, 2007
I enjoyed the article and agree with it's point of view.

One area in which I differ slightly is in descibing cameras as intruding on privacy. What happens in public is by definition not private. Therefore a camera recording whatever can be observed bv a random bystander is no violation of privacy. We merely have an increasing ability to observe, record, archive, retrieve and analyze actions that take place in public.

I'd augment the quote by Carol Kleiman with, Don't do anything in public that you would not do in front of a police officer.
Jeff Bryant - Posted on August 07, 2007
Denny, Your argument is based on a false choice that Americans either have to permit more government spying on their personal lives or they put their lives at risk to terrorist attacks. What nonsense. In between those choices are numerous other measures?such as those recommended by the 9/11 Commission?that could be enacted without snooping on people?s Internet habits and phone conversations. Also, many of the examples of government eavesdropping you offer?such as spy cams in public places to identify speeders and polluters?are not the same thing as government taps on your phone and your Internet to see who you correspond with, what organizations you belong to, and who you give money to. Finally, the assertion that more ?data mining? of people?s personal habits would have prevented past terrorist attacks is totally unsubstantiated. Instead, government data mining of our personal habits is more likely to lead to more incidents of government abuse like what occurred in New York prior to the 2004 Republican National Convention. For over a year, undercover NYC police conducted covert observations of protest groups and activists who planned to attend the conference, including street theater companies, church groups, antiwar activists, environmentalists, and people opposed to specific government policies. At the convention, more than 1,800 of these people were arrested on minor or false charges, herded into pens at a Hudson River pier, and fingerprinted. Is this the type of society that you want, where the government targets people because of what they say or believe, then tracks their activities until they find an excuse to incarcerate them? What a sad day in America when we give up our personal freedoms for a false sense of "security" that is sold to us by politicians.
Kevin Haining - Posted on August 07, 2007
1> There is a difference between what private industry can do and what the government can do. Individuals make a bargain/contract with companies like AOL.
2>It is a myth that we have to give up our liberties to be safe. Surrendering our rights is letting the terrorists win. After all, doesn?t that just help in creating the type of world they want to live in?
3> ?71% are in favor of them (spy cams)? is a specious argument. The Bill of Rights doesn?t put freedom of speech up for a referendum. Our country was founded on inalienable rights not mob rule.
David C. - Posted on August 07, 2007
Denny,

It's rare that I disagree with you, but have to hear. You've already been recited the excellent quote from Ben Franklin. If you'd like to get some expert insights into what most of what the Government is doing (at least what we know about) will not stop terrorists, visit http://www.schneier.com/blog/.

More and more, I can't help but think that "protecting America from terrorists" is being used as excuse for chipping away our constitutional rights, such as trying to avert the Posse Comitatus Act:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Posse_Comitatus_Act

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." --James Madison.
Tom Koziol - Posted on August 07, 2007
I think we forget that the criminals in D.C. aren't the government. They are merely representatives. We the people are the government.

Given this is true, I, as part of the government, say no to all of the laws on the books that say my agents can spy on me.

Denny would have us believe giving up our rights, in dribs and drabs, is OK. After all, we are trading security for protection.

Hogwash! Read some of the Supreme Court decisions on the police's duty to protect us. They have absolutely NO duty to protect the citizenry.

Now, I'm supposed to give these gang of outlaws even more power. I say no.

I'll let them regulate Hatch and his family and I'll tell them to keep their 10 paces when it comes to me and mine.

Anybody who truly believes trading rights for security is either badly misguided or someone who thinks he will be allowed into the inner circle when the home grown extermists have all the power.

Good luck to you Brown Shirts. Your boy Adolf showed you some 60 years ago how you will be rewarded.

On the other hand, I could be, and hope I am, totally wrong.
DGR - Posted on August 07, 2007
Another insightful article. I could not agree with you more.

Identity Theft (IDT) which is now among the fastest growing white collar crimes, is insidious and can be devastating. IDT is distinctly different from credit card fraud. Many of these thefts are committed by insiders who have access to confidential and other non-public information--and then assume your identity. The Feds and States are wrestling with approaches to control IDT. At best, companies and individuals can "manage" this problem.
Restoring one's identity can be expensive and incur hundreds of hours. The FTC website can provide information on this issue. Identity Theft can best be prevented through a continuing monitoring process. In the event of an ID theft, you immediately wnat to stop the theft, and then restore ones identity back to the pre-theft status.
John H Jervis - Posted on August 07, 2007
I agree. Safe rather than sorry. This legislation Bush signed is just re-hash of old laws on books.

But - let's be careful we're not "boiling the frog"

(You know, the old story about how a frog will jump out of boiling water, but put him in cold water, heat it up slowly but constantly and by the time he realizes it's gotten to boiling point it will be too late).
Ms. Parker - Posted on August 07, 2007
At the risk of stating the obvious, let's not forget where we came from...

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

Yes we are all being spied on and it can be a positive thing, but it is important to remember what a slippery slope this is. How quickly can this "protection" turn around when you anger your protectors?
Donna - Posted on August 07, 2007
I agree in the broad sense that it is important to safeguard our citizens. I agree I want to see bad people go to jail (hit/run etc.) I agree I want to see pedophiles go to jail (and not pass GO.) The question is (and I believe it must be high on our list) -- how far is too far -- how much is too much? Where is the point that my privacy (and therefore everyone's privacy) remains sacred? Let's truly ponder this and not be glib with the answer!
Walter Pearce - Posted on August 07, 2007
I agree that most of our commercial activity resides in the public square. But if Denny is right in his larger point, then maybe we aren't responsible enough to live in a free and democratic society.

The idea that if we surrender our freedoms in little dribs and drabs, the government will be able to protect us, is fatally flawed. Ask anyone knowledgeable on the subject whether it is possible to protect a country as large and diverse as the U.S. from a determined attacker, and they will tell you it is impossible.

On the other hand, surrender enough rights and we'll find ourselves under the thumb of a tyrant. For example...what was the administration doing that was so illegal it prompted AG Ashcroft, the Assistant AG and the FBI Director -- none of them known as civil libertarians -- to threaten to resign?

Responsible citizens should require more transparent decision making and greater accountability from elected leaders, not submit to ever-greater intrusions on our liberty in a fool's quest for absolute safety. Unfortunately in my view, Denny's position seems to be carrying the day.
john friesen - Posted on August 07, 2007
It's one thing to know you're being spied upon and quite another to give governments and others the legal right to spy on you. When they don't have the legal right, you have some right of redress. But that's not my main point. Since 9-11 you Americans have been filling your pants in fear, in a grand form of catastrophic thinking that let's your government trample your constitution (or Bill of Rights), invade foreign countries without justification, give away billions to cosy friends, such as Halliburton, trash your economy and ignore the plight of its own people (New Orleans, healthcare). Wake up Denny and America: The average American is far more at risk from bacon than from terrorism!
Stan - Posted on August 07, 2007
Denny, Thanks for this rational comment on issues of privacy and security. And thanks for the links!
Heather - Posted on August 07, 2007
Unfortunately, with no checks and balances on "spying" who/what is to stop the government from moving forward with a program to identify terrorists before they are born....you know based on some sophisticated model that says if your Mom and Dad did this, then you will do this. If the government spent the money they are using to "spy" on educating young people, helping feed starving people, stopping domestic violence, etc...perhaps future generations of desperate souls will become future generations of inventors, musicians, marketers, etc....instead future terrorists.
A wise teacher once said,"you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals." I will always remember,"Absolute power corrupts, power corrupts absolutely."
Personally, no amount of scare tactics about impending death and destruction, will ever make me agree to give authority to people who will most certainly be using this information to tax me more than they already do.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Mark - Posted on August 09, 2007
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

I don't think Mr. Hatch is talking about liberty - I think he's talking about privacy. There's a significant difference (and I would happily give up a little privacy for a little security).
Kevin - Posted on August 08, 2007
I would like to briefly respond to Mr. Hatch?s last posting.

Your say you believe it is imperative that ?the terrorists be found?. Do you think those who disagree with you don?t and are not as sickened of the events of 9/11 as you? If someone made the argument that we should start bombing the countries where those terrorists came from and begin forming detention camps here, would he or she (following your logic) be on higher ground than you?

Another point, you decry those demanding ?privacy?. That word only appeared on three comments, and two of those agreed with you!

A quote from the WSJ opinion page is hardly a way to bolster your argument. And wouldn?t any serious reader of history find that Pollyanna view of power laughable?

I can?t speak for Justice Scalia, but I would hope that any case before him would be decided using judicial temperament based on facts and law.

Finally the Founding Fathers? I think the Benjamin Franklin quote Mrs. Parker sited is a good indicator.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

Finally, I think it's important to not demonize those who disagree with us, or question their motives.
DT - Posted on August 08, 2007
Denny, I love your column, so it pains me to take issue with you, but I'm afraid I must.

In his book "The Law," economic journalist Frederick Bastiat observed that "unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others."

I would remind you that the first arrest made under the Patriot Act - which was passed to fight terrorism, was made against a San Diego man for selling pornography.

Despite all the regulatory safeguards and prohibitions that were in place, IRS employees were discovered a few years back to be freely plying through and sharing tax records of people they had no authority to check on.

Not so long ago the Social Security Administration was caught confirming information for creditors about the clients they were charged by law to protect.

The record is replete with examples of misuse of protected information by the FBI and even the White House. We've forgotten why we passed laws protecting our privacy in the first place.

As Bastiat put it:
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?
Denny Hatch - Posted on August 08, 2007
I do not often reply to reader comments. In the column I have my say and the comment section is for the readers to reply--pro or con--to me or to each other. However, I believe it is imperative that terrorists be found and tracked--their phone calls, money transfers, e-mails and travels. It is easy to take the civil liberties high road by demanding "privacy"--a word that appears in neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution of the United States. Those in such high dudgeon over government spying are looking at 9/11 from distance--through the wrong end of a telescope. What if you had a telescope on 9/11 and focused on the faces peering out of a smashed plate glass window of the top floor of South Tower, where you identified the face a loved one--a spouse, child, a parent--terror-stricken in the last moments of life? Anyone involved in that scenario, I believe, would insist that this carnage must never happen again--whatever it takes. Today's edition of The Wall Street Journal (August 8, 2007) agrees with this and allays the fears of an evil, prying government by saying," As for the possibility that Presidents will abuse this power, fear of exposure is an even more powerful disincentive than legal constraint. The political costs of being seen as spying on Americans for partisan ends would be tremendous." Maybe this whole thing will have to be decided by the Supreme Court. How would Antonin Scalia rule--a man that was within spitting distance of where American Airlines flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11? How would his doctrine of "originalism" square with the kind of enemies the Founding Fathers never dreamed of--suicide bombers that will be rewarded with the eternal pleasures of 72 virgins? The Chinese proverb, "May you live in interesting times," is operative here. Alas, we do.
David - Posted on August 07, 2007
I'm generally pretty liberal which means, among other things, that I don't like being spied on by the government. However, I have no problem with datamining of information that's already out there. Any one of us would throw up red flags once in awhile, but there should still be probable cause.

For instance, if you suspect someone of growing marijuana in their basement, compare their electric bill to their neighbors. Grow lights use a lot of electricity. But is a high electric bill probable cause? Perhaps it is when lumped with other factors.

The spying idea still makes me nervous though. As a reporter, I do a lot of research on the Internet, so it takes me places I might not go if I wasn't working on a story. Should I be judged by my research? What if I go someplace unknowingly? What if my nephew visits and uses my computer and downloads music files illegally? There are just so many things that a person could get in trouble for when they had no intent or no knowledge regarding the activity.

So, I guess my reaction is that anything public ought to be very public. Let us all have a look at it. We are the government, right? Or at least let us look at our own files. Some of this needs to open up for technology to continue to improve our lives. I want my computer to tell me when I'm low on peanut butter and to e-mail that information to my phone while I'm at the grocery store. And when the store scans my card, the clerk can tell me, "Hey, this is the fifth tub of peanut butter you've bought this month."

Sometimes, datamining and compilation can make us more free.
Jeff Bryant - Posted on August 07, 2007
Your character count did not permit me to provide a link to the NYC Republican Convention incident I describe below. Here it is:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/07/3039/
Fred Lederman - Posted on August 07, 2007
Denny-

Good grief!! What is in the Philadelphia water supply?

Let us all not forget the Declaration of Independence of our great country and our right to ??life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?.

As citizens we do have inalienable rights and we must protect them at all costs. Before our politicians put the people who elected them to office under a microscope, they need to go through the same level of scrutiny. Opening that closet will unleash a mountain of bones that would encompass every frailty and sin known to man.

As an amateur historian, I support the belief that inspired our forefathers to create the Gadsden flag. I?m sure you are familiar with its slogan ?Don?t tread on me?.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html

Concerning our government?s vaulted clandestine ability to spy on criminals, let?s start with an easy question. Why can?t they find a fifty year old, 160 pound, left handed, bearded male of between 6?4? and 6?6? wearing a turban having Type 1 diabetes, kidney problems, osteoporosis and walks with a cane living in the sparsely populated mountain region of Afghanistan and Pakistan?
http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_binladen.htm

Let?s get into some meatier subjects like should America?s business leaders unify to rid Congress of its entire pork pulling politicians and sponsor a third political party?
http://www.unity08.com/node/1633

As always, have a great day and keep up the good work!
JP - Posted on August 07, 2007
Couldn't disagree more. The lack of logic is astounding: "If mining my data, surveillance of my phone records, monitoring my Web activities and tracking my movements with spy cams will keep me safe, so be it."

The key word is "If." You advocate giving up over 200 years of American Constitutional law on a "maybe"? What if all those violations of civil liberties do nothing to make you "safer" but simply shred the fundamental American principle of due process under law?

More likely, that glut of data will just overwhelm the law enforcement agencies whose job it is to sift through it.

To say you have nothing to hide so you don't care is to welcome a police state and to spit in the face of every patriot who ever sacrificed for this country. Civil liberties are not icing on the cake, they are the fundamental values that define us as a nation. But too many of us have been scared out of being Americans.

The powerful, the cowardly and the paranoid people who push these unlawful tactics see not only terrorists, but anyone whose opinion differs from theirs, as the enemy. This is Pandora's box presented as a quick fix solution.
Bonnie - Posted on August 07, 2007
I heartily agree with Kevin. Looks like you've bought into the fear mentality that the current administration is so adept at cultivating -- these are the people that are spying on the Quakers, for God's sake.
As for 9/11, a quick read of Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan" might help regain some balance.
Bonnie Benson
Scott Melrose - Posted on August 07, 2007
I enjoyed the article and agree with it's point of view.

One area in which I differ slightly is in descibing cameras as intruding on privacy. What happens in public is by definition not private. Therefore a camera recording whatever can be observed bv a random bystander is no violation of privacy. We merely have an increasing ability to observe, record, archive, retrieve and analyze actions that take place in public.

I'd augment the quote by Carol Kleiman with, Don't do anything in public that you would not do in front of a police officer.
Jeff Bryant - Posted on August 07, 2007
Denny, Your argument is based on a false choice that Americans either have to permit more government spying on their personal lives or they put their lives at risk to terrorist attacks. What nonsense. In between those choices are numerous other measures?such as those recommended by the 9/11 Commission?that could be enacted without snooping on people?s Internet habits and phone conversations. Also, many of the examples of government eavesdropping you offer?such as spy cams in public places to identify speeders and polluters?are not the same thing as government taps on your phone and your Internet to see who you correspond with, what organizations you belong to, and who you give money to. Finally, the assertion that more ?data mining? of people?s personal habits would have prevented past terrorist attacks is totally unsubstantiated. Instead, government data mining of our personal habits is more likely to lead to more incidents of government abuse like what occurred in New York prior to the 2004 Republican National Convention. For over a year, undercover NYC police conducted covert observations of protest groups and activists who planned to attend the conference, including street theater companies, church groups, antiwar activists, environmentalists, and people opposed to specific government policies. At the convention, more than 1,800 of these people were arrested on minor or false charges, herded into pens at a Hudson River pier, and fingerprinted. Is this the type of society that you want, where the government targets people because of what they say or believe, then tracks their activities until they find an excuse to incarcerate them? What a sad day in America when we give up our personal freedoms for a false sense of "security" that is sold to us by politicians.
Kevin Haining - Posted on August 07, 2007
1> There is a difference between what private industry can do and what the government can do. Individuals make a bargain/contract with companies like AOL.
2>It is a myth that we have to give up our liberties to be safe. Surrendering our rights is letting the terrorists win. After all, doesn?t that just help in creating the type of world they want to live in?
3> ?71% are in favor of them (spy cams)? is a specious argument. The Bill of Rights doesn?t put freedom of speech up for a referendum. Our country was founded on inalienable rights not mob rule.
David C. - Posted on August 07, 2007
Denny,

It's rare that I disagree with you, but have to hear. You've already been recited the excellent quote from Ben Franklin. If you'd like to get some expert insights into what most of what the Government is doing (at least what we know about) will not stop terrorists, visit http://www.schneier.com/blog/.

More and more, I can't help but think that "protecting America from terrorists" is being used as excuse for chipping away our constitutional rights, such as trying to avert the Posse Comitatus Act:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Posse_Comitatus_Act

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." --James Madison.
Tom Koziol - Posted on August 07, 2007
I think we forget that the criminals in D.C. aren't the government. They are merely representatives. We the people are the government.

Given this is true, I, as part of the government, say no to all of the laws on the books that say my agents can spy on me.

Denny would have us believe giving up our rights, in dribs and drabs, is OK. After all, we are trading security for protection.

Hogwash! Read some of the Supreme Court decisions on the police's duty to protect us. They have absolutely NO duty to protect the citizenry.

Now, I'm supposed to give these gang of outlaws even more power. I say no.

I'll let them regulate Hatch and his family and I'll tell them to keep their 10 paces when it comes to me and mine.

Anybody who truly believes trading rights for security is either badly misguided or someone who thinks he will be allowed into the inner circle when the home grown extermists have all the power.

Good luck to you Brown Shirts. Your boy Adolf showed you some 60 years ago how you will be rewarded.

On the other hand, I could be, and hope I am, totally wrong.
DGR - Posted on August 07, 2007
Another insightful article. I could not agree with you more.

Identity Theft (IDT) which is now among the fastest growing white collar crimes, is insidious and can be devastating. IDT is distinctly different from credit card fraud. Many of these thefts are committed by insiders who have access to confidential and other non-public information--and then assume your identity. The Feds and States are wrestling with approaches to control IDT. At best, companies and individuals can "manage" this problem.
Restoring one's identity can be expensive and incur hundreds of hours. The FTC website can provide information on this issue. Identity Theft can best be prevented through a continuing monitoring process. In the event of an ID theft, you immediately wnat to stop the theft, and then restore ones identity back to the pre-theft status.
John H Jervis - Posted on August 07, 2007
I agree. Safe rather than sorry. This legislation Bush signed is just re-hash of old laws on books.

But - let's be careful we're not "boiling the frog"

(You know, the old story about how a frog will jump out of boiling water, but put him in cold water, heat it up slowly but constantly and by the time he realizes it's gotten to boiling point it will be too late).
Ms. Parker - Posted on August 07, 2007
At the risk of stating the obvious, let's not forget where we came from...

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

Yes we are all being spied on and it can be a positive thing, but it is important to remember what a slippery slope this is. How quickly can this "protection" turn around when you anger your protectors?
Donna - Posted on August 07, 2007
I agree in the broad sense that it is important to safeguard our citizens. I agree I want to see bad people go to jail (hit/run etc.) I agree I want to see pedophiles go to jail (and not pass GO.) The question is (and I believe it must be high on our list) -- how far is too far -- how much is too much? Where is the point that my privacy (and therefore everyone's privacy) remains sacred? Let's truly ponder this and not be glib with the answer!
Walter Pearce - Posted on August 07, 2007
I agree that most of our commercial activity resides in the public square. But if Denny is right in his larger point, then maybe we aren't responsible enough to live in a free and democratic society.

The idea that if we surrender our freedoms in little dribs and drabs, the government will be able to protect us, is fatally flawed. Ask anyone knowledgeable on the subject whether it is possible to protect a country as large and diverse as the U.S. from a determined attacker, and they will tell you it is impossible.

On the other hand, surrender enough rights and we'll find ourselves under the thumb of a tyrant. For example...what was the administration doing that was so illegal it prompted AG Ashcroft, the Assistant AG and the FBI Director -- none of them known as civil libertarians -- to threaten to resign?

Responsible citizens should require more transparent decision making and greater accountability from elected leaders, not submit to ever-greater intrusions on our liberty in a fool's quest for absolute safety. Unfortunately in my view, Denny's position seems to be carrying the day.
john friesen - Posted on August 07, 2007
It's one thing to know you're being spied upon and quite another to give governments and others the legal right to spy on you. When they don't have the legal right, you have some right of redress. But that's not my main point. Since 9-11 you Americans have been filling your pants in fear, in a grand form of catastrophic thinking that let's your government trample your constitution (or Bill of Rights), invade foreign countries without justification, give away billions to cosy friends, such as Halliburton, trash your economy and ignore the plight of its own people (New Orleans, healthcare). Wake up Denny and America: The average American is far more at risk from bacon than from terrorism!
Stan - Posted on August 07, 2007
Denny, Thanks for this rational comment on issues of privacy and security. And thanks for the links!
Heather - Posted on August 07, 2007
Unfortunately, with no checks and balances on "spying" who/what is to stop the government from moving forward with a program to identify terrorists before they are born....you know based on some sophisticated model that says if your Mom and Dad did this, then you will do this. If the government spent the money they are using to "spy" on educating young people, helping feed starving people, stopping domestic violence, etc...perhaps future generations of desperate souls will become future generations of inventors, musicians, marketers, etc....instead future terrorists.
A wise teacher once said,"you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals." I will always remember,"Absolute power corrupts, power corrupts absolutely."
Personally, no amount of scare tactics about impending death and destruction, will ever make me agree to give authority to people who will most certainly be using this information to tax me more than they already do.