Privacy vs. Security

Societies have become super-connected; technology has destroyed barriers of distance. Isolation has become a rarity in our modern nation. Satellites, telephones, cellular phones, internet, televisions, and radios have dwindled disparities between local communities, tying us together through a common knowledge shared by a national community. The government encompasses our lives, from the water we drink, to the building codes architects must abide by. It regulates our markets and dispenses nutritional advice. It wages wars in foreign countries to prevent future wars from happening. It oversees the production of national assets -- roads and sewage systems. It maintains a public system of education open to all. It protects us. We have laws, guidelines in all sectors of our society one must follow so that peace and order may flourish. Law enforcement officials protect these laws. The justice system punishes any breaches. A revolutionary idea that makes America free and just is "innocent until proven guilty." The American Constitution's Fourth Amendment protects its citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by authorities. The USA Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001. It bypasses the Fourth Amendment in many instances and has drastically lowered steps authorities have to follow in order to look through records and personal property. In an ambitious effort to curb foreign and domestic terrorism, lawmakers have given the proper authorities the right to do almost whatever it takes to locate and prosecute "terrorists." In the process, they have eradicated privacy and created a police nation. President Obama signed a four-year extension on this bill earlier this year.

A common argument for this bill's existence is that an individual has nothing to fear if there is nothing to hide. It will not affect an innocent person. Actually, it will protect this person.

Now, think of foreign wars; how, since Communism became a "major" threat to democracy, the USA has become involved in these wars. Think of Iraq. Ask how many soldiers have actually encountered certified terrorists. The concept between these wars and the USA Patriot Act are the same -- prevention.

The counter argument still holds -- prevention means protection, and the innocent still have nothing to fear.

Now, think of the recent immigration laws being passed. Alabama's law enforcers are allowed to arbitrarily pull over individuals and ask for identification.

The probable cause leading to the questioning of an individual is no longer anything that person has physically done. Whim has taken the place of probable cause. And racial profiling. And ulterior motives (reports have shown that the USA Patriot Act is rarely used for the detection of terrorist activity).

Americans have become guilty until proven innocent.

The counter argument still holds -- the innocent will be proven innocent.

So, what's so wrong with this new direction our national government has taken?

Thin lines

David Post writes in his The Question Is Whether Kafkaesque Or Orwellian Is The Appropriate Adjective post about a technique the government has employed to curb unlawful material found on the internet. Essentially it is a "domain name seizure", where the government, given probable cause, is allowed to pull the plug on any website without prior warning to the website's host. Post's intended audience, I suppose, is anyone who has the time to question the government and its actions, whether highly publicized or not. His credibility is unrecognizable. Post claims this act to be "nightmarish." He fails to add any evidence to his claim and his logic gives way to emotion.

Scenario: a man is driving erratically on a freeway. He passes a cop and is immediately pulled over. While speaking to the cop, he slurs his words together. This is probable cause for a cop to ask you to step out of you vehicle in order to determine whether or not you are fit to drive. In the event you are arrested, you will have a trial, your guaranteed due process. In the case of domain name seizure, this seems to be a similar thing. You are not being declared guilty once your domain name is seized and your website disappears. You are simply being "arrested". Post argues that this seizure is an atrocity, but it is nothing more than a cop arresting a drunk driver who reeks of alcohol. They will still get their due process and be let free if they are innocent. I think domain name seizures are okay, as long as there is probable cause (obvious cause, really) to their unlawful nature.