Why is there such a fuss over privacy? Rand Paul’s stand in the Senate against data collection by the government made him a hero to some Americans, and an obstacle to sound policy to other citizens. But whether it’s declared or not, we’re at war now with Islamic terrorists, some of whom are presently residing in Western Europe and America. Some have traveled to Iraq, Syria or Yemen for training and indoctrination with ISIS or Al Qaeda, while others have been inspired at home by jihadist websites or social media.
The incidents in Paris at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket where seventeen people were killed, and the shootings at the Brussels Jewish Museum, and at a school in Toulouse, and the subway bombings in London and Madrid, should be enough to convince privacy advocates that terrorism is a real threat. Counter-terrorism authorities in every nation should be allowed to use every type of surveillance technique possible to avert further acts of terrorist murder, even if people’s privacy is breached to some degree.
What are we talking about when we refer to loss of privacy? If all of our emails, texts, and phone calls are collected, but only suspicious ones listened to or looked at, does it really matter? The actions will be taken by anonymous bureaucrats who don’t know us and could not care less about any salacious material or private matters that are revealed. And the suspicious individuals that are targeted and monitored will be those who have traveled to the Middle East, Pakistan or Afghanistan, had contact with terrorists or other suspicious persons, visited jihadist websites or listened to jihadist propaganda.
Social media also needs to be carefully monitored, both those of the jihadists and those of acolytes in Western nations who are drawn to Islamic extremism. The budding Western jihadists may announce their intentions, bragging about what they are going to do, allowing counter-terrorism forces to stop them beforehand. It is difficult enough to catch these terrorists in waiting, whether lone wolves or those working in groups. There are not enough counter-intelligence and law-enforcement personnel to keep tabs on every suspicious individual. Thus, Western nations start off at a disadvantage. Every bit of technology available should be used as force multipliers to help law-enforcement agencies. Does the possible loss of some citizens’ privacy really matter when weighed against preventing mass murders?
France recently passed a law increasing allowable surveillance with the understanding that it was necessary and England appears to have an active system of electronic and visual surveillance. Germany has had qualms about the loss of privacy because of their history with the Gestapo and the Stassi, but they have to get over it. They and we are living in different times. There has also been opposition to German cooperation with America’s National Security Agency, because of previous NSA secret collection of data in Germany. But all Western intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have to cooperate and help each other to stop or reduce terrorist activity.
Recently, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records was illegal. And there are still a number of members of Congress and Senators from the left and the right who are reluctant to allow government access to citizen’s electronic or phone messages because it infringes on privacy. Rand Paul in speaking against revision of the Patriot Act said- “The sacrifice of our personal liberty for security is and will forever be a false choice.” I don’t believe that.
The opponents of the Patriot Act, who want to end the ability of the NSA to collect bulk data and analyze messages that come from suspicious individuals, really don’t understand the insidious threat Western nations are facing. Or opponents are doing it for political reasons so they can stand up as defenders of personal liberty.
More than 99 percent of citizens in Western nations will never have their personal messages examined by the government. And if you haven’t done anything wrong or suspicious you have nothing to worry about. So what’s the big fuss over loss of privacy?
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
Political junkie, Vietnam vet, neurologist- three books on aging and dementia. Book on health care reform in 2009- Shock Therapy for the American Health Care System. Book on the need for a centrist third party- Resurrecting Democracy- A Citizen’s Call for a Centrist Third Party published in 2011. Aging Wisely, published in August 2014 by Rowman and Littlefield. Latest book- The Uninformed Voter published May 2020