While shopping at that mecca of savings, Costco, the other night, I noticed a bumper sticker that said "I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway". While I think the purpose of this bumper sticker was to imply that so many of our civil liberties have been lost, trampled upon or otherwise purloined by the much maligned Patriot Act, the thought occurred to me that I really wasn't using my civil liberties anyway.
Here I have all these civil liberties, and, well, what am I doing with them...? I don't particularly care if a person watches me or if the government scans my grocery receipts. Surely my life is uninteresting, perhaps so uninteresting that I might get excited if I were to be embroiled in a false imprisonment saga. Sometimes I think to myself, "if i'm not breaking the law, what do I have to worry about?"
And to some extent that's true, but I'll admit it's a dangerous precedent to open up the kimono and let the government see whether I wear socks or do not wear socks to bed at night.
I wrote last week of the new smart cameras ready to be installed in Chicago to help detect terrorist plots and strange behaviors like walking in circles in front of monuments. NPR did a story on cameras the next day. Electronic surveillance will certainly become ubiquitous over the coming years, particularly if we experience another major terror attack on our soil.
With increased electronic surveillance will almost certainly come a certain fear that our civil liberties, or at least some of them, are gone forever. What if we were all given kevlar identification bracelets with GPS smart chips that told the Feds who and where we are at all times? I know a lot of parents that would likely put those on their kids right now, if only because it would theoretically make them a lot safer were something to happen to them.
Article comments
1 - Vic
It's occured to me that any Americans serving or working in Iraq should have GPS chips embedded (if such a technology in fact exists). Anyone kidnapped could be located almost immediately as could their kidnappers.
Chips to be removed upon return to the States, of course. :-)
Vic
2 - Shark
Jeremy Chrysler: "...Sometimes I think to myself, "if i'm not breaking the law, what do I have to worry about?"
Imagine it's 1933 and we're all Jews.
3 - bhw
The chip idea works until you realize that the kidnappers would just remove them by poking around until they found them, without providing an anesthetic.
4 - Jeremy Chrysler
I think what is more likely is that a sophisticated kidnapper would have a device which could query the body to detect the presence of the chip. Still, doing so would take time.
5 - Jim Carruthers
There's always Neal Stephenson's take on surveillance, which is to make it ubiquitous and open to everyone.
Since there are cameras and RFID tags already, the problem isn't what is being observed, but who is doing the observing. Wouldn't John Ashcroft be a better person if I could pop him up on a webcam like right now? (Okay and make him dance in a chicken suit would be sweet).
It's all open source y'all. After all, most of this mess you've got in the past couple of years wasn't because of surveillance, but because it wasn't known.
6 - Vic
The chip idea works until you realize that the kidnappers would just remove them by poking around until they found them, without providing an anesthetic.
Well the concept would be that we would do it without announcing it. Of course that's impossible since some idiot congressman would feel the need to divulge the information... lives and national security be damned.
Vic
7 - bhw
In an open society, Vic, putting chips in the citizenry [kids were mentioned in the main post] really won't -- and shouldn't -- remain a secret. We'll have chip company ads on every subway train and baseball stadium outfield wall.
8 - Mac Diva
And, most of these 'protections' would be pointless. A person intent on blowing up, say, a federal building, still will. (Funny how the most successful terrorist act in America prior to 9/11 is seldom mentioned by the Right, isn't it?) The person walking in circles around a monument is probably one of America's millions of untreated schizophrenics. The person most likely to injure or kill any American is an acquaintance, friend or family member. We really need to put risks into perspective. I suspect people don't because to do so is unsettling. To know your spouse is a heck of a lot more likely to kill you than Ali from Saudi Arabia isn't reassuring.
As for 'not breaking the law,' don't be so sure about that. The reach of the new 'anti-terrorism' laws is broad. As I said on a thread this week, if you contributed to a charity that directly or indirectly supports some programs that have Muslim patrons, you can be accused of supporting terrorism. And, even the mild-mannered librarian at your county or college library has authority to spy on you.
Jeremy Chrysler's high comfort level with authoritarianism notwithstanding, one does not need to break laws, even unfair ones, to be targeted by the criminal justice system. That fact is what makes Bush's America a very scary place. Not since McCarthyism has the 'with us or against us' atmosphere been so blatant.
9 - bhw
To know your spouse is a heck of a lot more likely to kill you than Ali from Saudi Arabia isn't reassuring.
To say the least!
As I said on a thread this week, if you contributed to a charity that directly or indirectly supports some programs that have Muslim patrons, you can be accused of supporting terrorism.
Yes, the wording is so vague that many unsuspecting citizens could end up being prosecuted for donating to a charity. Kind of makes you think twice about those tax deductions, doesn't it?
And, even the mild-mannered librarian at your county or college library has authority to spy on you.
Yes, but luckily, they're not as mild mannered as they seem. As a group, they're opposed to the Internet filters they're supposed to use, as well as giving away information about their patrons' reading habits. There's a good bit of civil disobedience hiding under those hair buns and reading glasses.
10 - Vic
Ah yes, internet filters. We must preserve the right to view porn from the anonymity of a public library computer.
Vic
11 - Mac Diva
Glad to see you admit to having a vice, Vic.
12 - bhw
Yes, Vic, we must. Filters for adults are ludicrous. Filters for kids should be optional and their use determined by their parents, not the government.
13 - Eric Olsen
I don't see Jeremy taking a side on this at all, but doing a very good job of pointing out the competing factors and options. I don't have the answer either, but we have to think about the options and keep them open.
14 - boomcrashbaby
The problem with porn filters in libraries are that porn filters are not exact. They can and do also filter out words like 'breast' or 'gay'. So someone who uses the library for their net connection cannot access sites related to breast cancer or support groups for gays, etc.
From Ancient Alexandria, to the Roman Empire up to today, our libraries are supposed to be vast storehouses of knowledge and learning. The entire concept of 'censor' should be frowned upon when thinking of library.
From the other thread where it's discussed the Right is going after public television, to censoring the content of library computers, it's all just more of an attempt by some, to make sure society raises their kids by their own values when they're not around. (Make sure MY library contains only stuff that I find suitable for minors).
15 - bhw
Exactly, Boom, on all points.
16 - Vic
The problem with porn filters in libraries are that porn filters are not exact. They can and do also filter out words like 'breast' or 'gay'. So someone who uses the library for their net connection cannot access sites related to breast cancer or support groups for gays, etc.
On that point I do agree.
From Ancient Alexandria, to the Roman Empire up to today, our libraries are supposed to be vast storehouses of knowledge and learning. The entire concept of 'censor' should be frowned upon when thinking of library.
There's a big difference between a book on the Kama Sutra or sexual dysfunction and "live sluts on cam do whatever you want." I can see the former being included in a vast storehouse of knowledge, but not the latter.
Vic
17 - boomcrashbaby
There's a big difference between a book on the Kama Sutra or sexual dysfunction and "live sluts on cam do whatever you want." I can see the former being included in a vast storehouse of knowledge, but not the latter.
I agree completely. I think if the technology were there, that could filter out porn only, and both sides of the debate could 'test' the software independently and ensure that it works effectively, it would probably be put in place. But technology is clearly not there yet, not even getting close. It's possible the technology will never be there. And as such, I consider porn and spam a small price to pay to keep the PUBLIC storehouses of knowledge free and open. Who would get to decide what qualifies as what should be censored? Do you know how many people out there consider the Kama Sutra or even a picture of Michangelo's David obscene? An Italian restaurant out here recently had to put shorts on their David sculpture, some uptight bitty couldn't focus on her pasta primavera. I don't believe in censorship, I'd rather put up with the porn and work to instill the values in my child that will make her not need to turn to that as a source of info or entertainment. (and then if she looks at it at some point, which she most likely will in her teen years, at least she'll have a perspective and a maturity to handle it, I hope). That's where I believe the focus should lie.
18 - Shark
Big Brother is watching and we discuss accessing porno in libraries.
Keep your eye on the swinging pocketwatch, kids.
19 - Jim Carruthers
Since the profit margin from hotel chains and cable providers providing porn is probably greater than all of the public library budgets combined, I think it is safe to say that libraries as porn providers isn't even on the table.
Chances are, if you really want to hide something from the public, put it in a library.