Privacy and Control
Much of the debate over FISA (see, for example, this interesting essay by Julian Sanchez) misses the point. Trying to frame the problem in purely constitutional, Fourth Amendment terms puts a round peg in a square hole, unduly elevating the mindset of the Framers into a quasi-religion. Let's face it: in the most generous of interpretations one cannot fairly describe the Framers as modern thinkers. To oversimplify, their primary concern had to do with reconciling competing limited (self-absorbed, often irrational) interests whereas ours has more to do with controlling the agglomeration of full-spectrum (usually rational), predatory ones, while also facilitating government's role as a positive — perhaps even progressive — agent of change. The procedural balance we choose to strike involves entirely different considerations.
Understood properly, FISA represents but one aspect of the modern machinery of social control. Arguments over FISA thus should be generalized to include awareness of the broader issues at stake. In the UK, for example, which for years has been leading the world in the construction of a total surveillance state, there's talk of adding primary school children to a DNA database if they show signs of anti-social behavior. At the same time, on another front, the UK government wants to track all commuters who use smart cards on public transport. Though neither has yet to be implemented, from such programs it would be only a short step to 24/7 monitoring of everybody, through some combination of chipping, cctv, and assorted other technological marvels.
All of which raises a profound question: Do drones have political rights? That's the debate to have over FISA, not whether it can be narrowly interpreted to be consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
Posted by George Kenney on March 17, 2008 8:48 AM 
« Knee-Jerk Reactions | Main | For God's Sake, Don't Mention the War! »
Comments
The thing that gets me about FISA is that it was already a rubber-stamp court, but Bush refused even this. This suggests a dictatorial desire to avoid all accountability. As for total 24/7 surveillance, look to the bright side. No more Spitzers will dare to visit prostitutes, and family life will improve! :-) Isn't it remarkable that the country that gave us George Orwell is taking the lead in a Big Brother state.
Posted by: benjamin777
|
March 18, 2008 10:28 AM
As a citizen and resident of the UK cctv-state myself, the new surveillance measures being considered are highly unnerving. The culture of paranoia is pervasive, and may even drive me overseas. Even continental EU countries with compulsory national ID cards feel less oppressed and fearful than the UK these days.
Posted by: Richard
|
March 19, 2008 3:47 PM
Good post George.
Once our Western surveillance grids are firmly in place, there will be no risk of dissent, civil disobedience, or deviation from the status-quo (no matter how crazy/evil it might become). Why would anyone face the risk of being tagged an outcast for a lifetime for a single act of dissent?
With the upcoming UK national ID scheme, everything about you will be in a central location. If you're tagged, you'll probably see your traveling rights restricted without legal recourse (just like the US no-fly-list), entering building, purchasing items etc... Since every aspect of your life will require an ID check, you'll pretty much be living in an virtual prison.
Without dissent, there is no democracy (if we ever had any). With surveillance there is no freedom, and no safety from the state.
Anyway, by the time the sheeple population realize this, the grid will be in place and it'll be too late.
Only solution: Emigrate! The question is : WHERE?
I know... I'm such an eternal optimist :)
Posted by: KevinM | March 21, 2008 7:57 PM