Why I support warrantless electronic surveillance (long)
by markjay, Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:10:52 PM EDT
I have voted for the Democratic Party every election since 1972. I have also been a full-time organizer for the United Farm Workers union and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. I have a long history as a progressive activist.
Yet I disagree with virtually the entire netroots in the issue of FISA and telecom immunity. Let me state my position and please tell me why you disagree.
The world has always had small numbers of people who would choose to do violent harm in society, whether for criminal reasons, political reasons, religious reasons, or just crazy discontent. For most of human history, the harm that could be done by a small number of individuals was minimal.
Over the last few centuries, this has started to change, and that change has accelerated in recent decades. The amount of devastation that could be inflicted by a small group of people is now immense, due to several factors:
(1) Increased population density, with huge numbers of people living in crowded cities around the world
(2) Increased communication capacity, with small numbers of violent people better able to locate one another and conspire together
(3) Increased knowledge available, with small number of violent people better able to use online sources to figure out how to inflect harm
(4) And, especially, increased weapons capacity, with highly portable biological, chemical, and/or nuclear weapons now potentially accessible to small numbers of people with violent intent
For these reasons, I think we have to step up our vigilance in protecting society from those that would do harm to us. At the current time, the most likely group to launch an attack with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is probably Al Qaeda, or indpendent groups with similar ideology as Al Qaeda. However, such an attack could also be launched by domestic terrorists (e.g., Oklahoma City) or by a religious cult (e.g., the group that launched the sarin attack on subways in Japan a few years ago). In the future, other groups might pose similar dangers.
How then can we protect ourselves from such groups? Well, there are several ways, one of which is trying to keep people around the world as contented, well off, and educated as possible, so that fewer people have the kind of grievances that would result in such attacks. But in a world of 5 billion plus people, there is always the danger that groups will emerge that will seek to wreak havoc.
I believe that the use by terrorists or cults or criminals of a weapon of mass destruction is a distinct possibility, and such an attack would absolutely devastate our country and world. Think of the chaos that followed Sept. 11, when 3,000 people were killed. Imagine the economic, and social upheaval worldwide if an attack with WMD killed hundreds of thousands or millions of people, and contaminated one or more U.S. cities.
So I think we need to do anything in our power to prevent such things from happening. And one of the ways--certainly not the only way, and not necessarily the best way, but one small way together with many other ways--is through improved surveillance.
Sweden recently adopted legislation that will allow warrantless surveillance of all telephone and Internet communication from foreign countries into Sweden. Software will be used to look for key terms, etc., to try to identify potential threats that deserve greater attention. I think such surveillance is an excellent idea and should in fact be extended. I would be in favor of using such widescale surveillance not only for international communications, but also for domestic communications.
Yes, I will agree that such surveillance is far from perfect. Terrorists or criminals can go "under the radar" by using codes, etc. But even codes can sometimes be cracked. And forcing terrorists to use codes already disrupts their communications a bit and makes them work harder to achieve their ends. (I have heard that Al Qaeda makes much less use of cell phones these days due to the possibilities of surveillance, which must make their work much more difficult.)
What about the 4th amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches of peoples papers and effects? I would argue that such surveillance is reasonable in today's society, not unreasonable. (One could also argue that the use of electronic telephone lines or online communications involves use of a public utility and thus need not be protected.)
What about our basic moral right to privacy? Well, we give up that right all the time in the interest of security. I don't hear the left complaining about the use of metal detectors on airplanes, which arguable represent a more disruptive and intrusive invasion of individual privacy) If we are willing to have our luggage and person searched in order to fly (in the interest of security), we should be willing to have our communications monitored in order to use public communications networks (similarly in the interest of security)
Every day I look at my three young children, and I want them to grow up safe and sound. I am not worried at all about having my phone calls or Internet messages automatically monitored, together with everybody else's. But I am interested in keeping my children safe from violent attack. I realize that there are many other terrible that can happen to them and that the chances of a major terrorist attack are still pretty small. But the chances are growing, and I would like to keep them small. And I see mass electronic surveillance as one way of contributing to that end, with very little downside.
OK, please have at it. What do you think is wrong with my thinking?
Tags: FISA, telecom immunity (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
64 Comments