Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom

Findlaw.com ^ | 10/19/2007 | John W. Dean

[imd102]

"I've got nothing to hide, so electronic surveillance doesn't bother me. To the contrary, I'm delighted that the Bush Administration is monitoring calls and electronic traffic on a massive scale, because catching terrorists is far more important that worrying about the government's listening to my phone calls, or reading my emails." So the argument goes. It is a powerful one that has seduced too many people.

Millions of Americans buy this logic, and in accepting it, believe they are doing the right thing for themselves, their family, and their friends, neighbors, community and country. They are sadly wrong. If you accept this argument, you have been badly fooled.

...."the problem with the nothing to hide argument is with its underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things." He warns, "Agreeing with this assumption concedes far too much ground and leads to an unproductive discussion of information people would likely want or not want to hide." Solove's bottom line is that this argument "myopically views privacy as a form of concealment or secrecy."

The concept of "privacy" encompasses many ideas relating to the proper and improper use and abuse of information about people within society. Privacy protects information not only because it would cause others to think less of the person at issue, but also simply to give us all breathing room: "Society involves a great deal of friction," Solove writes, "and we are constantly clashing with each other. Part of what makes a society a good place in which to live is the extent to which it allows people freedom from the intrusiveness of others. A society without privacy protection would be suffocation, and it might not be a place in which most would want to live."

[catpuppy]

Still stupid after all these years ....

[AU72]

Taking advice on government misconduct from John W Dean is like studying military strategy from the French General Staff.

[Brilliant]

Government surveillance of terrorists is a small impingement on my privacy compared to the other violations of my privacy that occur on a daily basis.

[elhombrelibre]

Yes, he’s still a fool. He did much to hurt his country before and apparently still eager to do more to hurt his country.

[the_devils_advocate_666]

I was wondering the other day how many people would volunteer to have a video camera strapped around their neck 24x7 to record their every word and action sort of through their own eyes. It would be a live stream and anyone who felt like it could get on-line and check out what you are saying and what you are doing. Would you do it? I sure wouldn’t.

[colorado tanker]

Straw man argument.

The real point is that I have never assumed that any overseas phone call I've made is private, and anyone who does is pretty dumb, IMHO. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy here.

[imd102]

I do find it interesting that conservatives have been so quick to jump on Bush’s surveillence-at-any-cost mentality, when they will be facing a Hillary White House very soon. Can’t wait to see what she does to NRA members, for example, with all this executive power he is going to leave her. I fear this power grab will not seem so great when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Badeye]

Uh huh, I need advice from John Dean about privacy, surveillance?

No thanks. I’d rather listen to Natalie Maines explain world politics....

[Realism]

The right to privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

[ClearCase_guy]

I didn't both to read the whle thing, I admit it.

I've talked to many people who take the following line: "You think it's OK for the FBI to monitor international calls? Don't you care about your privacy? This just opens the door, and the next thing you know, your neighbor is going to know what you buy with your credit cards!!!!"

I don't mind government monitoring.
I don't expect the information to be shared with my fellow citizens.
I don't expect the government to use the information against me.

Until I see evidence that things are going wrong, I think a reduction in privacy is acceptable. The modern world in a scary place, and the government needs tools.

[Nervous Tick]

Government surveillance of terrorists is a small impingement on my privacy compared to the other violations of my privacy that occur on a daily basis.

"We don't keep records of where you've been! Honest!"

Actually, my life is pretty boring (to a government entity, anyway... I kinda like it). Not too worried about "them" and what they know about me. Not at all worried about a republican administration. But if Hillary! gets her hands on the levers of power... then I might worry!

[DBrow]

The article assumes “widespread surveillance”, while the Bush Admin asserts that the surveillance involves a known terror suspect on one end of the line. The intent to watch a particular person is run through FISA.

I agree that widespread surveillance is not good.

I do think though that if we have a suspect in the ME or elsewhere that’s calling people in the US, we should listen in.

The article sets up a strawman then proves how horrible the strawman is.

[Nervous Tick]

>> volunteer to have a video camera strapped around their neck 24x7 to record their every word and action

Hell, I’ll do it. But I have to warn you, it might be boring... no more interesting than surfing free republic 24x7.

Come to think of it, it’ll be a whole lot like surfing FR 24x7! :-)

[DBrow]

“I was wondering the other day how many people would volunteer to have a video camera strapped around their neck “

Here is a project that involves wearing a tracking badge that monitors your whereabouts and “tone of voice” to study “social networking” in companies.

http://web.media.mit.edu/~dolguin/ISWC06v4_olguin_paradiso_pentland.pdf

According to MIT press releases, there is lots of interest in such tracking badges. Coming soon to a workplace near you, the volume cost will be about $100.

As for the 24/7 wearable webcam, I think Jennifer Ringley would resurface, and then thousands after that. If I were doing something cool, I’d do it for a period of time just to share.

[ChurtleDawg]

I cannot imagine that anyone who calls themself a small government conservative would approve of warrantless search and surveillance, when it is something that is obviously prohibited by the 4th amendment

[the_devils_advocate_666]

One of the things that turned me off to the idea is that my boss could check in at any time and see what I was doing on my computer monitors. I’d have to be doing series work for 8 hours every day, sheesh.

[ozzymandus]

John Dean?? Isn’t he that elderly criminal beloved by olberboy?

[ChurtleDawg]

“The article assumes “widespread surveillance”, while the Bush Admin asserts that the surveillance involves a known terror suspect on one end of the line.”

ok, so we are just gonna take the governments word that they are only spying on the right citizens

[Old North State]

In a vacuum, Dean’s argument would have some merit, but we are not in a vacuum, we are in a war. Censoring and intercepting communications have always been acceptable sacrifices for combatants and noncombatants to make to help the war effort. Besides, much of what is being monitored is call patterns, not content, which allows data mining without intrusive snooping. Finally, what is Dean doing to help the war effort? I would bet the answer is nothing.