Collecting data from phone calls of Verizon customers is one thing. Collecting email information on millions of Americans is something else. Both of these activities stir concern and break the bounds of constitutionality, but the invasion of privacy is far greater in the collection of email data.
Phone
call data consists of phone numbers, dates and call duration, but not the
conversation itself. Email data, on the other hand, not only has email
addresses and date information, but the actual message as well, which often
includes names and attached text and media files.
4
The
potential for misbehavior is enormous, particularly with email data, given the
nature of the information available to prying eyes. Some comfort may be taken
from the idea that intelligence personnel who use this information are not
susceptible to political influences unlike, say, Internal Revenue Service
workers. That does not relieve the concern for our privacy, however.
Hardly
anyone doesn't want to the government to find plotting terrorists or discover
terrorist plans before they are acted upon, even if it involves tapping phones,
capturing emails or other covert measures. But the routine collection of
massive amounts of data in the hopes of finding a couple of useful pieces of
information is over-the-top and unjustified. Its use has increased since the
practice was first introduced after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
and has increased exponentially under the Obama administration, according to
the American Civil Liberties Union.
The
way it is supposed to work is that when the government has reason to believe
that one or more individuals – like let’s say Irv Huffington or Ahmed Ali-Yahoo
– may be planning an attack, it goes to court to seek an order allowing it to
tap their phone or take whatever actions it proposes to do. It doesn't simply
start collecting the records of millions of people hoping to find the
Huffington or Ali-Yahoo needle among millions of data bits in the haystack.
Here's
what the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution says: "The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."
That
language is precise and unambiguous. It does not allow judges to give anyone,
or anyone to just take the information of millions of Americans in the hope of
finding something hidden away among huge collections of data.
In
order to get permission to breech a citizen's privacy, the government must
request permission by offering a compelling reason and support that assertion
under oath, describing explicitly the place and persons under suspicion.
Nowhere in the 4th Amendment is the term "fishing expedition"
mentioned or implied, nor is there language allowing nosing around in the
private lives of millions of citizens who empower the government because it
makes things easier, and it does not depend upon what the meaning of
"is" is.
The
Founders viewed "general warrants," or dragnet searches such as we
are witnessing today, as tyrannical. That view is not mitigated by the advent
of terrorist acts that kill dozens, hundreds or thousands, nor by the amazing
technological advances since the mid-18th century; general warrants still are tyrannical.
The
United States has Constitution protections for a reason: because the Framers
understood from first-hand experience how government can slither into
impropriety, tyranny and oppression unless it is clearly and firmly prevented
by statute from doing so. The U.S. Constitution was created not to limit what
the people may do, but to limit what the government may do.
We
are told, and many of us believe, that in order to be safe in these perilous
times, we must give up much of our liberty and privacy for security, but
Benjamin Franklin expressed this idea about that: Those who willingly give up
liberty for security will have neither, and deserve neither.
It
is a point of shame for the citizens of the United States that so many
Americans have no functional knowledge of the principles upon which our nation
was created or of the meaning or power of the US Constitution. That is a prime
reason that so many on the political left are able to mis-think so many things
with such great success.
As
a nation we have grown lazy and tone deaf as our government has grown to gargantuan
proportions and ridiculous levels of expense, and burst through the top and
sides of the constitutional box our much-smarter-than-we-are Founding Fathers
built for it.
When
they look out on the US landscape and see that some things that aren't working
well, they think becoming more like left/liberal Europe is the answer, without
even the suspicion that the reason things aren't working is because they have
been trying for decades to become more like Europe and less like the United
States of America, which under the US Constitution became the freest, most
prosperous and most successful nation in human history, while liberal socialist
and communist governmental models have always failed.
