Who Wants To Know?

A recent news item informed us all that a method was being developed to text 911 calls so they could be made silently, especially useful in the case of an intruder or another emergency. It was assumed that over the next few years we'd have a society in which everyone would have a “smart” cellular telephone with the capability of sending texts. With a GPS in the unit there wouldn't be the need to identify the location – an important consideration for those with limited time and the weight of anxiety causing confusion or otherwise limiting their ability to communicate.  However useful the tool though, the time will come when our privacy will be completely gone.

We're not so far from that society now. And we're certainly a society that revels in the ability to reach out to everyone we know. That used to happen at most once a year – in a mass mailing of a Christmas letter that was designed to let family and friends in on what had happened in the prior year. Now we see it as important to provide “real time” information on our feelings, activities, and ideas to as many of our closest friendsⁱ as we can locate. And in addition to what we've told the world, we can send individual texts and photographs of our pets, dirty dishes, and whatever else we can think of. It's so easy to take pictures with those same telephones and to include them in the messages. After all, we're sure that all our correspondents are interested – more interested than we are in their idiotic productions. And it's all so easy with the various social networks established by the latest group of billionaires.ⁱⁱ

Anyway, we're eager to tell everything to everyone – including internet vendors. We brag about how many “friends” we have. We enjoy the rapid publication of everything we think or “feel,” and we're eager to send immediate status reports and “tweets” to everyone; and to get feeds from the world. We want everyone to know everything about us and we want to know everything about everyone else.ⁱⁱⁱ

Well maybe that's an overstatement. But it's always been important to document and preserve our “selves” and our knowledge. In the past, it was often recorded on scrolls because that was the state of the art. And we might then store it in a warehouse of information that might be accessed at some undefined future time. The library at Alexandria was such a famed repository, but its destruction illustrated the tenuous nature of that attempt at preservation of knowledge. Modern computer systems are far more satisfactory in providing this service. And they should be used to serve the “people” in this goal.

Thus we may want our friends to know everything, but we don't want the government to know anything. It's a paradox. Governments were established for the protection of society but we fear our own more than any other. Espionage has always been around. It was known in the ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations and in Egypt as well. It is documented in the Bible,^iv so it is clear that this is not a new phenomenon. And it's gone on throughout history. “Everyone,” as the saying goes, “does it.” Two famous examples from the American experience are Benedict Arnold and Aldrich Ames. They were “bad guys”; they were spies. It's a given that all nations spy on each other, but that doesn't mean that we don't try to protect ourselves from such activity; yet that doesn't stop us doing the same thing. Only when we do it we term it “intelligence gathering.” Or at least that's what we call it when it's directed against others. When it's aimed at us,^v it's spying.

That's the source of our unhappiness with the NSA. When they collect records of all our telephone calls they're spying on us. It isn't intelligence gathering, it's spying. They may assure us that the material they have merely serves a database which will only be used to track the conversations of those truly threatening our security, but we know better. They may claim that what they're doing is legal and necessary.^vi But they're wrong.  And the courts may support that position, but they're wrong too – if not in fact then in implications. They may tell us that they need these records for future searches, but irrespective of that promise, the files shouldn't be saved. They should really be destroyed.^vii Who knows what use they'll be put to, and by whom.

I don't agree. I recognize the idea that society, and the protection it affords, are worth some sacrifice of privacy^viii in order to minimize the risk from those who oppose us. And I accept the view that information may be collected and saved for future use, information that has no immediate application and may, in fact, never be utilized, but will be available if needed. I have a large library with most of the books never read but they're there if I need to look something up. That's what libraries^ix are for.

Most people have no hesitation about providing information to surveyors and pollsters^x – information that we know will be used in the future – even though it will take time before its value is assessed and its applicability determined. Moreover we have no compunctions about spreading information ourselves which may or may not be accurate, and may or may not be damaging now, or in the future, to others. That information is in the form of gossip, innuendo, rumors, and the like, and we enjoy it greatly. It's OK if we obtain or provide confidential information, but the government has no right to do so.

The public is of two minds about privacy. Most people don't care who's “listening.” In fact, many are pleased by it. So much so that they compete for larger totals of “friends.” The fact that the Library of Congress collects every “tweet” sent is validation. It provides their fifteen minutes of fame. Some, however, are more sensitive. Among them are the ACLU and similar organizations that question the collection of information by any government agency. “Transparency” isn't enough, though they demand it of government officials. They adopt the “slippery slope” argument and maintain that the collection of any data now will eventually lead to the collection of all data in the future. It's the “camel's nose” argument.

I personally don't believe it makes sense. Absolutism may have some validity when discussing religious principles, however when relating to secular pursuits it assumes that people lack the ability to distinguish between principles and practice. It adopts a reductio ad absurdum approach to everything. And in instances like that involving the NSA it assumes that the government is evil. Eternal vigilance may be the price of freedom, but that vigilance may also be required by the government – not just the ACLU. It all depends on whom you consider the enemy.

That's enough for now. I'll finish it up next time. But, of course, I won't give my real name. I don't know who might be reading this.

Next episode: “Lean Back And Enjoy It” – If you can't lick 'em, join 'em.

I       We target “friends” and followers whom we invite to join our networks, and we, simultaneously join theirs.

ii       That makes them members of the one (hundredth of a) percent, though we don't think of them that way.

iii     We ignore the very real risk of hackers and identity thieves, though we may get additional programs to try to minimize the chances we're taking.

iv      See Numbers 14:1 and ff, and Joshua 2:1.

v       Or we believe it is.

vi      In keeping with the Patriot Act.

vii     As is the case with all such unevaluated and global solutions to situations we view as problems, a decision to destroy the records may result in the destruction, as well, of evidence in cases before the courts. For more on this subject see Wall Street Journal, February 2o, 2014: NSA Weighs Retaining Data for Suits. As the article suggests, this may result in the retention of more records than initially intended, but that would be the unintended consequence of such a move.

viii    And even though I know it's not true, I can live with the premise that most people are honest and law-abiding, and the information they obtain in conformity with legal and judicial limits will ultimately be used for my benefit.

ix      Not to mention Google and other search engines.

x      In fact they're tickled by the thought that their views are considered representative of a portion of the population, and that they can express their opinions and prejudices (my term, certainly not theirs) openly, and have it taken seriously.