Who’s Watching You?

by digby

… and why?

Glenn Greenwald gets to what’s important about this snooping into the passport files of the three presidential candidates — the simple observation that if the government has the means and the ability to spy on citizens without proper restraint or sanction, it will. In this case, they are saying it was some “contract employees” (temps?)whose curiosity got the best of them. Maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t, but it illustrates just how easy it is for the government, and government employees, to use the vast powers and technological prowess taxpayers pay for, to intrude on American citizens’ privacy.

Why in the world was it so easy for any State Department employees, much less contractors, to access such files in the first place? These are three of the highest profile people in the United States. How many other people’s files have been accessed and for what reasons? This is, after all, the Bush administration, where even the Justice department was run as an arm of the white house political machine.

This is the problem. Human nature alone dictates that if people can stick their noses in other people’s business they will. When there are also the incentives of power (and perhaps, money) it’s almost irresistible to some people. That is why the fourth amendment exists — the enlightenment concept of our inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness depends upon our ability to maintain our privacy.

When you allow your government to become a surveillance state to “protect you” from the “enemy,” its inevitable that the power will be misused and will end up encroaching on your freedom and autonomy. The definition of “enemy” after all, is subject to interpretation. If you build a police state, they will use it. (And history shows exactly what that can lead to.)

This episode may very well be benign. If we start hearing about “questionable” travels by one of the candidates, we’ll know. (President Clinton’s records were searched by Bush operatives in 1992 to find out if he had secretly traveled to Russia to meet with his communist handlers, after all.) But it’s bigger than that. The government handles vast amounts of information and except for a few intrepid citizens and the ACLU, nobody seems to be too exercised about what they might be doing with it. If anyone thinks they won’t possibly use it for political purposes, they’re being naive.

Nobody likes slippery slope arguments, but they can also be seen as being properly attentive to the consequences of certain actions. A right to privacy is fundamental to freedom. If we don’t strenuously protect it, the consequences are that we won’t be free. It’s no more complicated than that.

Sam at Scholars and Rogues has more on privacy vs. technology, here.

.