This great article goes into great detail how the current surveillance society came to be, and looks at the historical origins of the entire process - and the debate that continues to this day. It is as enlightening as it is well-written.
No one should believe that real-time government surveillance of the communications network is an idea born of the 9/11 attacks or that it results solely from the Bush administration’s aggrandizing of executive power. The legal arguments that the government has asserted to support increased surveillance of digital space were first put forth in 1994, under a Democratic president, and they had little to do with the threat of Islamic extremism.
All the more reason to continue to fight for our own privacy rights at every turn - because by its very nature, Government (with a capital G) will scoop up every last bit of privacy you have if you don’t defend them. And before you know it, you’ll feel… well, a picture speaks louder than words:
“1984 was NOT supposed to be an instruction manual.”
No, it was not - but it seems like we’re following it as if it were.
Save to Browser Favorites
Ask
backflip
blinklist
Bloglines
BlogMarks
Blogsvine
BUMPzee!
CiteULike
co.mments
Connotea
del.icio.us
DotNetKicks
Digg
diigo
dropjack.com
dzone
Facebook
Fark
Faves
Feed Me Links
Friendsite
folkd.com
Furl
Google
Hugg
Jeqq
Kaboodle
linkaGoGo
LinksMarker
Ma.gnolia
Mister Wong
Mixx
MySpace
MyWeb
Netvouz
Newsvine
PlugIM
popcurrent
Propeller
Reddit
Rojo
Segnalo
Shoutwire
Simpy
sk*rt
Slashdot
Sphere
Sphinn
Spurl.net
Squidoo
StumbleUpon
Technorati
ThisNext
Webride
Windows Live
Yahoo!
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the C|NET News has a great writeup on what the effects of REAL ID are going to be to people in different states - depending on whether your state has complied or not.
There are some SERIOUS problems here of course - for example, you may not be able to go visit your representative in Washington DC if you don’t have a REAL ID - which is a clear violation of your right to petition your government.
And of course, today the news broke that the Department of Homeland Security is suggesting that REAL ID might be required to buy medicines that contain pseudophedrine. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original goal of REAL ID - it’s clear feature creep and the start of that slippery slope thing… that we were promised wouldn’t happen this time (really!).
As usual, the law - as it was originally passed - was supposed to be used to “stop terrorists.” Now it’s expanded to include immigration control, drug restrictions, and a “big stick” to beat down rebellious states - within our own country! States that have the guts to stand up and say “this is wrong, we won’t do it” are being beaten down with the power given to the DHS by the REAL ID Act.
Once again, we have taken another step towards becoming a police state. May I see your papers, please?
As usual, Bruce Schneier puts it more eloquently than I can:
…it’s precisely why, when people in their business are in charge of government, it becomes a police state. If privacy and security really were a zero-sum game, we would have seen mass immigration into the former East Germany and modern-day China. While it’s true that police states like those have less street crime, no one argues that their citizens are fundamentally more secure.
That is spot on. And it’s something that I’ve been trying to get more people to understand. In this post-9/11 world, everyone is telling us to be afraid of this, that, and the other thing, and we are then being told that in order to make ourselves “safe” we need to let people into our homes, our businesses, and our private lives, and that it’s OK, they’re trustworthy, just trust us on this one, folks, we won’t screw anything up for you. Just be good little sheep and get in line.
And by and large, we’ve been good little sheep, and we’ve gotten in line. And believe it or not, we’re headed for the slaughter.
But it’s not even a this vs. that debate here - being secure doesn’t mean we have to let government into our homes and personal lives. Once again, let me quote Bruce:
The debate isn’t security versus privacy. It’s liberty versus control.
You can see it in comments by government officials: “Privacy no longer can mean anonymity,” says Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence. “Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.” Did you catch that? You’re expected to give up control of your privacy to others, who — presumably — get to decide how much of it you deserve. That’s what loss of liberty looks like.
What we really aught to be scared of is not each other, or vague “terrorist threats,” but instead this creeping encroachment into our personal liberties. If anything, that should be what keeps us awake at night.
It’s what keeps me awake at night, anyway.