Government surveillance of the American people

¶ … Big Brother Watches America

When Orson Wells wrote his famous novel about government surveillance taken to the extreme, the world he described seemed very unrealistic. However, at the turn of the new millenium, the world that he describes is not so different and it seems as if we are just one step away from the "thought police" knocking on the door. For some this gives them an extra-added element of security, but others see it as a serious infringement on their freedom.

Today, we are watched in a variety of ways. Every where you look, you see video cameras recording our every move. Wiretaps are frequent and devices that transmit over the air such as cell phones are easy targets for those trying to hone in on our private affairs. The government monitors our email and web surfing activities, our bank accounts, credit card accounts and almost anything else you can think of.

The idea of surveillance first arose through the works of Jeremy Benthem. He was the first to design a prison system where the prisoners would be watched from a central location, but the prisoners themselves would never know when or if they were being watched. In this manner, Benthem hoped to reduce the incidence of misbehavior by the threat of being watched. The prisoners would never know if they were being watched. Therefore the fear of getting caught was not worth the risk. This concept formed the basis for modern surveillance philosophy. The fear of getting caught would prevent the person from committing the act (CtrlSpace.com, 2001).

Prior to September 11, 2001, the country maintained a level of awareness of the need for personal protection. However, most of the concern was for individual security such as against home invasions and theft. Any other government intervention was considered to be an invasion of privacy. After the events of September 11, people felt threatened on a different level. It was then that they became afraid of a new type of invasion, and this one they also felt on a personal level. September 11, 2001 made the idea of being watched seem more acceptable. After September 11, 2001, many states passed new laws concerning wire-tapping. Contrary to what would be expected, many of these laws put limits on how long conversations may be monitored (Morrison & Foerster, 2002).

The threat of terrorism far outweighs the concept of privacy and personal rights in most people's minds. Many people now see this as necessary inconvenience to keep the country safe. September, 11 changed the attitudes of the people about the right to privacy and the amount of intrusion that they would tolerate. The following research will weigh both sides of the issue.

There are two distinct sides to this issue. One side, the right, is vigorously touting the need for more surveillance. They stress the growing number of terrorist threats and America's need to be able to see it coming. The leftists feel that the terrorism is just an excuse to allow the government to enter into more surveillance activities. They feel that the individual should have the right to choose. They do not want increased intervention from the government. They feel that surveillance takes away our rights.

The question of whether surveillance is ethical or not is another key question in this issue. Most would agree that persons who have had a past history of criminal activity or actions that would harm others should be watched in some way. Afterall, these people have already proven themselves to be capable of untrustworthy acts. Most people do not have a problem with anti-theft video cameras in stores to protect the establishment from theft. It seems, that in the public eye, surveillance by an individual for their own protection is acceptable. It is only when the government does it to persons who are otherwise innocent individuals that an ethical question is raised.

Americans are accustomed to a high degree of individual rights, as opposed to many other countries in the world. It is one of the principles the country was founded upon. Prior to 9/11 many felt that the government did not have the right to monitor individual activity unless there was sufficient reason to do so, such as known dangerous activity. After 9/11 many feel that more government surveillance would give them extra-added protection against future similar attacks. However, this leads us to the questions, which arose from 9/11. Could more surveillance of private citizens prevented 9/11? Does the government have sufficient reason and evidence to support the idea of increased surveillance? The final question is, will more government surveillance actually help to curb future attacks, or will it make the attackers more secretive and better at what they do? These are the key questions surrounding the question of increased government surveillance and ones for which there is no easy answer.

Being watched does have a benefit. It is good to have someone to watch your back, especially in the event of more attempted attacks being broadcast on the news every day. The chance of begin caught with the increased security methods may deter some would-be terrorists from carrying out their plan. The government watches us to keep us safe and ensure that no one can pose a threat to this country or its citizens. Many people have devices in their car that will sense if something is wrong or it has been in a wreck and then it will automatically dial for help. This gives some people a sense of security and makes them feel safe. Other people object to the devices because it takes control away from the person. They feel as if someone is always "watching where they are going." This is the same two sides brought out by the surveillance issue.

According to Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the right to privacy is established in international law. The exact section of the law is found in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12 which states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks"(Rotenberg, 2002).

UN Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files (1990) set out Fair Information Practices that recommend adoption of national guidelines to protect personal privacy. Appropriately, the UN Guidelines note that failure to follow these principles "may be specifically provided for when the purpose of the file is the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual concerned or humanitarian assistance" (Rotenberg, 2002). Many societies including those of Biblical Times considered this choice to be an important part of personal freedom. Most countries include a section about the right to privacy as a part of their constitution.

Many countries may have laws to protect a citizen's right to privacy, however, several countries, including the United States have found loop holes to get around their own privacy policies. It works like this. The U.S. has laws that prevent our government from officially monitoring our domestic phone lines. However, there is no law, which says that it cannot form an alliance with other countries such as Canada and England to monitor our phone lines and pass on what they find. By the same token, the U.S. monitors their phone lines and they have an information exchange. This alliance is called Echelon and is an agreement between the U.S. And several other countries to provide monitoring of its citizens and information exchange (KJOS, 2002). Similar agreements exist between Western nations as well.

The subject of monitoring Internet activity is a highly debated topic. Great Britain has a device capable of monitoring traffic between an ISP and personal computers. It will become mandatory very soon. This Great Britain and U.S. are already talking about an Echelon type agreement for between the two countries for the exchange of Internet related information. The technicality is that the U.S. is not monitoring the Internet activity of its citizens, Great Britain is doing the actual monitoring (KJOS, 2002).

Despite protests by private citizens, the U.S. already has technology to monitor the Internet activity of private citizens. It is called Carnivore and is being endorsed by the FBI. This system has been in place since the Clinton administration and is essentially a wiretap for the Internet. It is highly intrusive and has been essentially hidden from the public. This is an unpopular law, so the government has used its standard response when confronted about an unpopular decision. They created a crisis for which the new technology was needed and used to media to distribute propaganda (KJOS, 2002)

The private citizen has many threats against their privacy. They come from technological-based devices. Without technology, remote surveillance could not become a reality. There are three characteristics of surveillance technology used to describe its various aspects. They are amplification, reutilization, and sublimation.

Amplification is the ability of technology to extend the ability to gather information and intrude into private life. Techniques for amplification invariably also capture information beyond that which may be justified by initial inquiry. Amplification includes wiretapping and other such listening devices such as reflector dishes to amplify sound, infra red cameras and heat sensing devices (Rotenberg, 2002).

Routinization means making the process of monitoring private citizens an on-going process. Examples of this type of surveillance include security cameras in banks. Most people take it for granted that when they are in a bank, they will be filmed when they make a bank transaction. This practice usually does not draw too much attention from the public. However, placing a camera in a restroom or dressing room may be a different issue (Rotenberg, 2002).

Sublimation is the process by which an agency makes surveillance devices more difficult to detect. The public does not challenge the use of surveillance devices mainly because they have become so efficient and undetectable that the public often does not know that they are there. "Illegal wire surveillance by law enforcement agencies is a long-standing privacy concern since it is so difficult to detect, to assess, and to challenge" (Rotenberg, 2002).

Surveillance devices are getting smaller, more efficient and difficult to detect. The process of Routinization has been used to introduce several concepts throughout history. In a sense, they start out with surveillance in a place that would not be controversial, then when people accept the devices as a part of this non-intrusive setting, they then begin to slowly filter them into other places. Making the devices more efficient and powerful allows them to be used from farther distances and they may be very difficult to detect. The third method is to simply not tell the public and they can expect no resistance to an objectionable action.

The best protection against invasion of privacy via the Internet is a firewall. There are several types available for home users, however, there are certain types of programs that can still get around these. A firewall program acts as a gatekeeper. When information comes into a computer, the firewall either allows or disallows the information from entering the computer based on criteria that you have selected. Eventhough these are not infallible, they can block most intrusions. Corporations using a net use a more sophisticated and expensive type of firewall system, which is more secure than the software programs previously described. They actually have a separate computer whose sole purpose is to decide which information to allow or disallow. This type of system is called a proxy server. It is difficult to get around a proxy server to the units located behind it.

If you suspect that your phone line is tapped, your local phone company can check it, usually free of charge. If they find a tap they will investigate to determine if it is legal or an illegal tap. If the tap is illegal they will notify law enforcement and remove the device. If the tap is legal, they will not notify you. When the duration of the tap has expired, the court system must notify the tapped party that the tap has taken place. This is according to 18 USC 2518(8)(d) (Utility Consumers' Action Network, 2002). Most states have passed laws making it illegal to tap a phone line for more than 30-60 days. Tapping phone lines without first obtaining permission from the court is illegal and the tapped party can then seek legal action against the party who tapped them. The court only grants taps for persons being suspected of certain felonies such as violent crimes drug offenses.

Most people believe that if they hear clicks, beeps or other noises on their line that it is tapped. However, most of these are only electronic disturbances. Wire taps are very difficult to detect and often give no outward sign that they are present (Utility Consumers' Action Network, 2002). Most wiretaps are illegal and conducted by someone for other than honest means. The court does not make it routine to take the phones of innocent citizens, but as we discussed before that does not mean someone else did not.

Advertising agencies are notorious for collecting information from private citizens without their knowledge. They wish to know who buys their product and about the buying habits of individuals so that they may send targeted marketing materials to the person. Most people find this practice not only annoying, but invasive as well. When a person surfs the net, a cookie is placed on their computer, which tells the store where they have been, how many times they return. And what they look awhile they are there. The company can then place them on a list and send them emails of offers, which match their specific demographics. Most people find this highly annoying, and again, a firewall program can block most of these unwanted invaders.

Marketing schemes are annoying, but the U.S. government is the biggest threat to privacy. Marketers only wish to sell you something, the government however, can cost you a lot and may even accuse you of something serious like terrorist activities based on private information. Government invasions of privacy include schemes for compelled identification, drug testing, physical searches of one's home or person, database profiling (similar to the type that marketers do), genetic testing, and polygraph examinations. With marketers, the person has recourse. One simply needs to inform the other party to remove them from the list and they must comply. Email spam must have a way of the person to unsubscribe, if they do not wish to remain on the list. With the government, it is a different story however, and once established, a citizen has no choice but to comply with the surveillance activity.

Government invasions of privacy have provoked public outrage on many occasions. Outrage has centered on census enumeration, and proposals to enhance the use of privacy enhancing techniques such as encryption. (Rotenberg, 2002). These topics used to be the subject of scholarly debate around morning cups of coffee. However, recently they have resulted in direct political action by many groups. This phenomenon has not been limited to the United States. Citizens in Australia have taken to the streets to protest a national identity card, similar to the social security card already in place in the United States. In Germany, the population objected to a national census. In the U.S., users of the Internet expressed their opposition to government efforts to limit the availability of techniques to protect personal privacy.