advertisement

GUEST COMMENTARY: Government dragnet threatens our rights to privacy, free speech

Monday, June 17, 2013 | 6:00 a.m. CDT

Whether you think spying is OK or not depends on your relationship to the information being collected.

If you’re on the gathering end, the invasion of someone else’s privacy doesn’t seem like a big deal. But if you’re the one whose private life is being pried into, this kind of surveillance seems like a very big deal indeed.

This dynamic is at work with the unfolding story about National Security Agency programs that vacuum up the telephone and Internet data of millions of people.

To President Barack Obama, such wholesale spying is a necessary evil. “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy,” he said.

Sens. Saxby Chambliss, Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham were among many in Congress who came forward to defend the programs.

Maybe they spoke too soon. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are responding in anger and demanding an end to Washington’s widespread surveillance.

This is why protections like the First and Fourth Amendments were enshrined in our Constitution in the first place — to shield people from such abuses of power.

Forgetting privacy concerns

But Americans aren’t being protected right now — because the people signing off on the laws are on the receiving side of the information divide. Many of them have lost touch with the privacy needs of the people they’re sworn to serve. To those in power, the intrusion into our lives is a tiny price to pay for a full-field view of the communications of all Americans.

And the range of data being mined is pretty staggering. According to reports in the Guardian and The Washington Post, the U.S. government is extracting audio, video, photographs, emails, documents, and phone-connection “metadata” that allow authorities to track any person’s movements and contacts over time.

This information includes data about people both abroad and at home who haven’t committed any crimes and have no connections with terrorist groups.

The Obama administration’s supposed authority to spy on all of us stems from its loose interpretation of the controversial USA Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act lets the government obtain a secret court order to collect “tangible things” that could be relevant to an investigation from businesses that hold user records.

Vague laws permit invasions

This vague wording has freed up intelligence officers to go after nearly any piece of information from anyone, including our Internet-search data, website-browsing patterns, telephone-contact lists and even Facebook “likes.”

Section 215 does an official dance around the Fourth Amendment — which protects Americans from the warrantless search and seizure of property — by dispensing with the government’s burden of establishing probable cause before obtaining a search warrant.

The Surveillance Act, which was reauthorized in 2012 under the FISA Amendments Act, allows the government to monitor the contents of foreign communications traffic — without showing that any particular individual is actually suspected of criminal conduct.

The resulting dragnet also threatens our First Amendment rights. People will be less likely to express themselves on popular services offered by Facebook, Google, and Yahoo if they know these companies are cooperating with government-surveillance schemes.

Coalition to stop spying

A coalition of privacy, Internet freedom, and free speech advocates has launched a nationwide campaign to stop the spying and clarify the laws that are supposed to keep our private lives private. The coalition has also called on Congress to launch a special investigation that would reveal the full extent of the NSA’s spying program.

While keeping Americans safe from terrorism is a noble objective, it can be accomplished without stifling free speech, invading everyone’s privacy and seizing our data. We shouldn’t have to choose between security and our constitutional rights.

Timothy Karr is the senior director of strategy for Free Press. Distributed via OtherWords.org.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Michael Williams June 17, 2013 | 7:48 a.m.

An analogy:

Humans will stay with an abuser for a very long time, especially if the abuser is perceived as a protector and/or supporter.

We do this because "hope" falsely stems from what the abuser says and what we want to hear, not what the abuser does. We believe the smooth and soothing words, not the eventual actions.

And folks won't talk about...or do anything about...the abuse, either. To do so indicates disloyalty and is a (false) admission of personal failure.

But when words don't match the actions, who is the real "failure"?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 17, 2013 | 8:05 a.m.

A rather well put piece.

"You can't have 100 percent security..." [Obama]. There neither IS nor ever WILL BE 100 percent security, even if ALL reasonable privacy has been destroyed. That's utter fantacy (a far more attractive term than "bull****").

Is Obama really that stupid, or is it that he thinks the rest of us are. Did the Third Reich or Soviet Union achieve "100 security"? Would you have liked to have lived in the Third Reich or the Soviet Union? If you would, you might re-settle today in North Korea. Just be certain the administration favors you.

Well, this is the same guy who was obsessed, before becoming President, about people who own guns and read Bibles.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 17, 2013 | 8:46 a.m.

Ellis: His votes as a senator...and his promises as a candidate...do not match his presidential actions.

Of course, there's always that brick wall of reality.

PS: For his second run, his promises were made with full knowledge of reality. He lied to get votes, but the lies are forgiven or tolerated because he is viewed as a protector and supporter no matter the reality.

Just like an abuser...it is the verbal facade that is important for control.

Dependent people identify with words, not actions. They believe words because words are 'hope' and cannot disappoint.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements