Government Surveillance: Criminal

The Quran and Minority Report were both written by men who experienced fantastical religious visions (Look it up, Philip K Dick was freakin’ nuts.), but that is not the only thing they have in common.  Both feature hot leading men (For those interested: Muhammad takes the cake in height and harem size, but Tom Cruise clearly wins in haircut, attractiveness, and net worth.) but also the concept of omniscience, one by God and the other by government.  The omniscience, or even existence of a God, is yet to be proven, but the insidious ambition of government to emulate gods is as real today as when Muhammad first stepped out of his cave.

2500 years ago, Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War, wrote about the importance of spies to the success of “Enlightened rulers.” 500 years ago, Francis Bacon wrote that “Knowledge is power.” 250 years ago, George Washington used an elaborate network of spies spanning the breadth of the thirteen colonies to win American independence.  80 years ago, the SS used similar techniques to root out those resisting the will of the Fuehrer. Espionage and government have been intertwined for millennia, but past governments did not have access to the surveillance technology of the 21st century, technology which improves every year and leaves us with few truly private conversations, moments, or even thoughts.

For years, we laughed at guys dashing about in tin foil hats, loudly disseminating their view that we were being watched. Well, it turns out they were right. Paranoid schizophrenics – 1, everyone else – 0. The US government, as exposed by the Snowden leaks in 2013, has been recording the phone and email data of both foreign suspects and its own citizens for years. Even now, it continues to do so. This frightening breach of our civil liberties violates the principles upon which our nation was founded and must be patched before the titanic body of democracy splits asunder.

Some of the more naive fellows in the audience may be thinking, probably in an obnoxious Southern accent, “What in tarnation is the problem with lettin’ our government protect us? Ain’t that what I pay the damn taxes fer?” Let me tell you, my Confederate friend; our Founding Fathers, were they still respirating, would be in darn-tootin’ disagreement with you.  They started the Revolutionary War in order to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” and a whole Amendment, of which there are only 27, is dedicated to preserving the sanctity of our homes from unjust military intrusion (Madison). It takes neither a historian nor a time traveller to deduce that they would not be overly pleased with the violation of our right to privacy of conversation being violated either, especially without “probable cause” as called for in the Fourth Amendment.

“Well, alrighty then. But ain’t our government only lookin’ out for us and our chillun? They’s only doin’ it to look for dem A-rab terrorists!”  One of the main problems with secret programs is that we don’t know for what they’re really used. Even if we assume that the government has told us the unmitigated truth about these programs (Given their track record, this assumption is especially likely to make an ass out of you and me.), we don’t know what they will use it for in the future. Giving the government the unfettered power is like handing out money to the homeless.  Sure, most may head over to Mickey D’s and grab a Big Mac, but eventually one of them is going to use it for drugs. In politics, ‘drugs’ means monitoring ideologically opposed individuals and, whenever they deem it appropriate, using the information for sabotage and blackmail. This line of reasoning is likely why over 60% of 50 Americans surveyed agree that the government should not have unrestricted access to our data.

“No President of mine would do that. Not even if he was hog-tied in the center of a square dance.” In 1974, Richard Nixon was forced to resign due to his role in the Watergate scandal.  His role consisted of endorsing and attempting to cover-up the illicit break-in and wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters. This, the biggest political scandal of the 20th century, consisted of the President illegally attempting to listen to ONE GROUP’S phone calls. Now, he can listen to whomever’s phone calls he pleases and without all the hassle of a burglary. The allure of retaining power drew Nixon to take drastic, illegal action. This allure has not dissipated; the possibility of gaining absolute power has only grown stronger.

“I still don’t see how this could hurt me.” The ability to accept and integrate exceptional new ideas made America into a superpower, a hub of progress and invention. If we can no longer deviate from the established stream of ideas, we will have lost our most vital advantage. And for what do we give this advantage away? Protection from terrorists?

According to the Heritage Foundation, an organization which supports continued surveillance of American citizens, an average of 140 per year died between 1969 and 2009 as a result of a terrorist attack. By conservative estimates, about 700,000 people died per year as a result of Stalin’s policies during his 30 year tenure as leader of the Soviet Union. Despotism is a far greater threat than terrorism and is liable to hurt everyone it touches, not excluding the despot.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If Francis Bacon’s logic and the transitive property are applied to this quote, we get ‘Absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely.’ This is what we offer our government. Absolute knowledge of our whereabouts, thoughts, and feelings. Not only are we endangering ourselves but also the lives and freedoms of future generations. We must do for our children what our forefathers did for us – chastise a tyrannical government and demand our inalienable rights, for each phone call recorded, each email filed away is another nail in the coffin of liberty and another brick layered into the foundations of tyranny. And the avoidance and prevention of tyranny is the basis of U.S. law codes.