The Government Doesn’t Have A Monopoly on Surveillance
March 1, 2006
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
As this column is being written on Feb. 6 (earlier than usual because of departure for the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade [SHOT] Show in Las Vegas), the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee was opening hearings on President Bush’s program of electronic surveillance in the “War on Terror.”
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who says the President has the executive power under the Constitution to order such eavesdropping, will be one of the early witnesses. He will face, among the 10 Republicans and eight Democrats who sit on the committee, several questioners from both parties who believe such Executive Branch spying on US citizens and residents is in violation of the Constitution.
Whether the hearings chaired by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) will resolve or shed light on the debate which has been raging among policymakers, pundits and the public remains to be seen.
‘War on Terror’
The President claims the Internet, telephonic and other surveillance was authorized by Congress as part of his authority to prosecute the “War on Terror.” The White House has further claimed that the only US citizens and residents subjected to such surveillance are those with links to non-Americans outside the US who have been identified or suspected of links to terrorist organizations.
We have published some opinions on both sides of the debate in these pages over recent issues because of the “privacy” debate’s general interest and involvement with core constitutional issues.
Recent surveys seem to indicate that the public is closely divided on whether such surveillance is proper and legal when asked if such eavesdropping is justified by the “War on Terror.” However, when the idea of domestic spying is not linked to Post-9-11 concerns, three out of four Americans disapprove.
The Patriot Act
The debate over permanently authorizing the Patriot Act is linked to this privacy issue and to the public’s belief in the sanctity of the Fourth Amendment. Hung up over such provisions as the need to obtain warrants from judges for the government’s domestic intrusions on people’s financial, telephone, Internet, health, library and other personal information, Congress merely approved extension of the Patriot Act for five more weeks—into early March.
The privacy debate is linked to a lot of our daily lives. People who discover that their private records have been violated by identity thieves or the government are justifiably upset. It is as though a burglar came into your home while you were sleeping and carried off your private papers along with your wallet or purse.
But why Americans should suddenly become concerned about their privacy is a source of some puzzlement to me. The blueprint for universal surveillance has been in place for some time.
Your Social Security number, which was not supposed to be used for identification, has become a national identity number—with the public’s acquiescence.
It has been tied to all of your financial records, including credit cards, investment accounts, savings accounts, checking and retirement accounts.
In most states, it is tied to your health records with doctors, dentists, hospitals, clinics, etc., as well as your driver’s license, hunting and fishing license, concealed carry license, motor vehicle registration, and so on. Many health insurance providers have also been using Social Security numbers as ID numbers for your health insurance card, although Blue Cross recently issued me a new card with a different number (except that in their computers, both numbers are now in the same database.)
And while the Form 4473 you fill out when buying a firearm says that the Social Security number box is ?optional,? it promises speedier service in processing your gun purchase application in exchange for the information.
Any of these entities above, commercial or government, including all of their employees, that have your Social Security number can now use it to access all of your other accounts, licenses and history. Your entire life can be laid open to an unscrupulous person with access, not to mention the talented but warped hackers.
This is not to say that this happens all the time, just that it can, and probably has. And even some government employees may not be above playing around with your records.
1998 Movies
A pretty scary version of government employees going off the reservation can be found in a 1998 movie “Enemy of the State,” which featured Will Smith and Gene Hackman. For those who didn’t see it, the Jerry Bruckheimer-produced film features all kinds of high tech surveillance of, in Smith’s case at least, innocent people because they came into possession of information the top government surveillance man didn’t want them to have.
Smith and Hackman, a former spook himself, have a very hard time evading their government pursuers, what with digital surveillance of every move or sound they make—using long-range listening devices and satellite cameras—being funneling into a central computer.
To give you an idea of how far off the reservation these government agents are, they are trying to retrieve a videotape of them killing the chairman of a congressional oversight committee.
That must have been a good year for films with a message of what happens when the government gets to go too far, because another film, “The Siege” with Denzel Washington, Tony Shalhoub and Bruce Willis was released the same year. In “The Siege,” we see what happens when the spy and surveillance business goes haywire and high government officials are willing to put New York City under marshal law, even though the general in charge, played by Willis, warns them that they will not like what results from such an order.
These were two good 1998 flicks, still available on video or DVD, that deal with constitutional lessons. Given that their actual production probably took place in 1996, the high-tech gear you see in the films is probably prehistoric by today’s technology standards.
However, what is even worse about this whole privacy issue is that there is evidence that the government does not have a monopoly on the spying business. In addition to identity thieves and other crooks, there are terrorists and madmen (and women) of all sorts who can also do some freelance spying, no matter what the law or Constitution says.
In its Feb. 5 issues, The New York Times points out that there may be hundreds of websites that are selling data lists about private individuals, including such things as lists of an individual’s cell phone calls. These merchants of surveillance call themselves on-line “data brokers,” and there are telecommunications companies and lawmakers who are trying to put the lid back on this Pandora ’s Box.
Because of the ability of government agency employees, hackers, or free-enterprise data pirates to keep anyone under surveillance, the right to privacy is in big trouble.
Return to Archive Index
