US Government Talks The Talk On Privacy & Civil Liberties, But Isn't Walking The Walk
from the some-good,-some-bad dept
The federal government very often seems to say one thing when it comes to privacy and civil liberties, while doing exactly the opposite. The Commerce Department has come out with a new report calling for a Privacy Policy Office that will look at commercial use of personal information, to make sure that privacy is protected. At the same time, President Obama has nominated Jim Dempsey to serve on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which is supposed to “review the civil liberties impact of anti-terrorism policies and programs.” There are few people who I think would be better for the job. For a while now, Dempsey has been president for public policy of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that has fought, quite strongly, for civil liberties in the technology arena. Apparently, President Bush also nominated Dempsey for the same board… but the Senate never bothered to confirm him (or anyone that Bush nominated for the board).
Of course, it seems odd to see our government pushing for privacy and civil liberties at the same time that it’s been working so hard to dismantle many aspects of the 4th Amendment, which is used to protect Americans’ privacy. It makes you realize that many of the decision makers in the government probably don’t even realize how its actions have regularly gone against the 4th Amendment and basic civil liberties. The administration seems to be offering lip service to the concept of privacy — and I have little doubt that they actually mean what they say. But, what they don’t realize is how their actions, when it comes to specific situations, appear to violate those very concepts. In many ways, it’s like those who crusade for stronger copyright laws, but regularly infringe themselves. They rationalize it away, by saying that there’s a “good reason” for doing what they do, without realizing that it highlights what appears to be hypocrisy between their words and their actions.
Filed Under: government, jim dempsey, privacy
Comments on “US Government Talks The Talk On Privacy & Civil Liberties, But Isn't Walking The Walk”
has any government not been hypercritical?
Governments writes stuff on the wall that they don’t actually practice.
or
Governments are actually talking about net neutrality for the wealthy few while everyone else below suffers as very most likely given that we live under capitalism.
To correct myself.
Governments are actually talking about privacy for the wealthy few not everyone below them given the fact we live under capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
The US Government Talks Newspeak
The author’s confusion is caused by a lack of understanding of Newspeak:
doublethink – A simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.
bellyfeel – Full emotional understanding. Blind, enthusiastic acceptance of a concept.
blackwhite- The ability to accept whatever “truth” the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be.
privacy – the right to have your personal information reviewed by Big Brother for your protection.
The 1st Amendment – the right to remain silent.
The 4th Amendment – the right to be molested at the airport, the right to have the police in your house in the middle of the night, the right to share your personal information with Big Brother.
The better wee understand Newspeak, the better off wee will all be.
Someone should tell the politicians that George Orwell’s 1984 was meant as satire and not a “how-to” guide.
“Dismant(ing) many aspects…….”? This government seems to HATE the Constitution of the United States these days. Or am I perceiving something that isn’t there? And why then are American military personnel fighting and dying to bring these freedoms to other parts of the world? Or is that a misperception, too?
Re: Re:
“why then are American military personnel fighting and dying to bring these freedoms to other parts of the world”
This is a very good question.
The system is always a balance. There are the interests of the individual, the interests of the state, and the interests of the masses as a whole.
Speed limits are things that are not in the interest of the individual (most guys speed given the chance), but they are in the interest of the state (traffic safety, transport, commerce), and they are in the interests of the masses as a whole (longer lives, safer roads).
The balance between public security and individual rights will be a fight that likely will never end in the US until the US ends.
Much of the early amendments of the constitution were written in anger against an oppressive british monarchy. The terms were relevant in those times (militias, anyone?), but have lead to many legal dead ends and disagreements.
The current world situation, where war is no waged by huge armies but rather one idiot with a bomb at a time means that the entire premise of much of the constitution of the US actually makes it very much at risk for attacks from the enemy. 9/11 is an example of people using the US systems, rules, and policies to inflict death and suffering upon a significant number of people.
Remember, more people died in the 9/11 attack than US soldiers in Iraq in 10 years. That was only a single attack.
The rights you so cherish are also the things that could be used to kill you. That is a really painful piece of reality right there.
In times of need, the government (not Obama personal, just as it was not Bush personally) need to push the limits of the constitution to try to find ways to fight crime, to do what is right for the masses, while sometimes having to box in the rights of the individual. That will always be the fight, it didn’t start with Obama and it won’t end with Obama. If you think voting him out (or keeping him in) would change things, you are sadly mistaken. Constitutionally, there is very little space for the Government to work, and no matter who is in power, the struggles will continue.
Your enemies are loving it. Every 4th amendment win, every 1st amendment victory is also a victory for them, as they win the right to continue to make hateful speech, to hide their criminal activities, and to attack innocent people where they live.
Re: Re:
“The current world situation, where war is no waged by huge armies but rather one idiot with a bomb at a time means that the entire premise of much of the constitution of the US actually makes it very much at risk for attacks from the enemy. 9/11 is an example of people using the US systems, rules, and policies to inflict death and suffering upon a significant number of people.”
That was also the world at the time the US was born. The difference is that WE were the terrorists at the time (tea party anyone?). What you are talking about is much more a difference of perspective. I would never defend the attack on the World Trade Center, or any attacks for that matter, but you are saying that the world is different when it is our perspective of the world that has changed.
It is important to remember that turning our country into a military state by taking away our privacy, our free press, and our free speech is in the best interests of our government and our enemies – not our people. What we are seeing with our bill of rights being degraded to defend against terrorists is what has happened to degrade every great democratic society into an empire.
Cesar was appointed to make decisions rather than the elected officials in Rome because foreign threats attacked their way of life. This did not happen overnight. It was a slow decay of democracy. This process may actually be inevitable – it seems to have happened to every great society that lasted long enough. As people in this society, it is our job to slow the process as much as possible.
condemn countries like China and Iran for censoring, then do worse your self. yea! lets hear it for the good ol’ US of A! hypocritical ass hats! just as big a bunch of bought, corrupt politicians as everywhere else!