Don't Look At Me!
Wolfram Donat
January 29, 2006
I like my privacy. Call me strange, but I enjoy knowing that someone isn’t looking over my shoulder, watching everything I do, perhaps judging and even making decisions on my future based on what TV shows I’m watching or what e-mails I’m writing. I think I’m not alone in this, either. I tend to believe that if asked, most sane American adults would feel the same way, assuming they’re not exhibitionists at heart.
This may very well be one of the reasons behind the huge furor over the president’s recent admission of domestic spying. We like to believe Big Brother is merely watching over us, not listening in on our phone conversations. It’s all right if the NSA is intercepting e-mails, as long as those e-mails are not – and have no chance of being – ours.
So what is it about privacy that sparks such passionate debate? Why do we crave discretion? If you do a simple Google search for “privacy,” you come across “privacy statements” for literally millions of websites. Most run similar to the following:
XYZ Inc. does not rent, sell, or share personal information about you with other people or nonaffiliated companies except to provide products or services you've requested, when we have your permission, or under the following circumstances.” They then proceed to outline all the situations in which they are likely to violate that privacy statement, such as when they suspect an illegal act of having taken place. The American public, if they even take the time to read this stuff, is willing to allow corporations to distribute our information if they believe something illegal is occurring. And, of course, the corporations have protected themselves from lawsuits by issuing the privacy policy in the first place.
I italicized the phrase about illegality above because I am stressing the fact that the legality of the situation dictates which freedoms and privacies we are willing to sacrifice. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
America is obsessed with our solitude, yet we also take it for granted. We draw our blinds at night so nobody can see us eating dinner and watching “CSI: Miami.” If you order any adult-oriented products through the mail (or so I hear), one of the selling points the companies offer is that the product comes in discreet, unmarked packaging. When John Doe is arrested for raping and killing 32 women and chopping them into stew, he throws his jacket over his head for the walk from the police car to the courthouse.
At the same time, however, we fixate on others’ lack of privacy – celebrities, for instance. The paparazzi have found a key to the mint, simply by invading the privacy of those whom we have made famous, for our own amusement. When celebrities complain, or manage to avoid the press, we feel cheated. Meanwhile, movie stars are constructing their mansions to resemble fortresses of solitude, a place where they can walk around their living rooms without being photographed with a zoom lens and tripod. We are voyeurs, watching and being watched as we watch reality TV shows and invite ourselves into others’ homes using web cams and hidden cameras.
The entire argument centers on the trade-off that may be necessary in the president’s self-professed “War on Terror” – which the American people have, either explicitly or implicitly, accepted. We have, in a sense, hired the government to find terror suspects and stop their evil plans. In order to do that, Mr. Bush says, the government must have the power to tap people’s phones and read their e-mails without asking the courts for permission. Whether or not this is legal under the Constitution doesn’t seem to matter as much as whether or not the public will stand for it. We like the safety net provided by a judge’s approval or disapproval of the wiretap. It seems that our previous decisions are coming back to bite us. Americans in general approved of the Patriot Act (one of the pieces of legislation from which this controversy descends), but now are finding it hard to stomach the repercussions.
And the worst part of those repercussions? The loss of privacy, or so it would seem. The public was willing to accept the existence of Guantanamo Bay, albeit grudgingly. We were okay with torturing/mistreating prisoners in Abu Ghraib, sweeping Saudi connections to Al Qaeda under the rug, even overlooking and forgetting previous ties between the administration and Saddam Hussein (á la Halliburton vs. Iran, etc.) But as soon as it came out that Mr. Bush was authorizing phone taps without a court’s permission, we immediately heard talk of special investigations and other penalties. At the same time, the Bush administration is fervently hunting down the staff member who leaked that information to the media.
Let’s be honest – most of us will never be wiretapped. Unless we’ve done something serious to make them suspect us of having terrorist connections, our e-mails will never be read. I doubt the NSA is really interested in the latest Wal-Mart joke circulating the globe. But what bothers us is that it could be us. And in a government that we could easily put into power, these powers could easily be abused. Is it such a big leap for the government to go from investigating those with terrorist connections to investigating those with democratic connections?
George Orwell only thought his vision was scary. 1984? Ha! How about 2006?
This may very well be one of the reasons behind the huge furor over the president’s recent admission of domestic spying. We like to believe Big Brother is merely watching over us, not listening in on our phone conversations. It’s all right if the NSA is intercepting e-mails, as long as those e-mails are not – and have no chance of being – ours.
So what is it about privacy that sparks such passionate debate? Why do we crave discretion? If you do a simple Google search for “privacy,” you come across “privacy statements” for literally millions of websites. Most run similar to the following:
XYZ Inc. does not rent, sell, or share personal information about you with other people or nonaffiliated companies except to provide products or services you've requested, when we have your permission, or under the following circumstances.” They then proceed to outline all the situations in which they are likely to violate that privacy statement, such as when they suspect an illegal act of having taken place. The American public, if they even take the time to read this stuff, is willing to allow corporations to distribute our information if they believe something illegal is occurring. And, of course, the corporations have protected themselves from lawsuits by issuing the privacy policy in the first place.
I italicized the phrase about illegality above because I am stressing the fact that the legality of the situation dictates which freedoms and privacies we are willing to sacrifice. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
America is obsessed with our solitude, yet we also take it for granted. We draw our blinds at night so nobody can see us eating dinner and watching “CSI: Miami.” If you order any adult-oriented products through the mail (or so I hear), one of the selling points the companies offer is that the product comes in discreet, unmarked packaging. When John Doe is arrested for raping and killing 32 women and chopping them into stew, he throws his jacket over his head for the walk from the police car to the courthouse.
At the same time, however, we fixate on others’ lack of privacy – celebrities, for instance. The paparazzi have found a key to the mint, simply by invading the privacy of those whom we have made famous, for our own amusement. When celebrities complain, or manage to avoid the press, we feel cheated. Meanwhile, movie stars are constructing their mansions to resemble fortresses of solitude, a place where they can walk around their living rooms without being photographed with a zoom lens and tripod. We are voyeurs, watching and being watched as we watch reality TV shows and invite ourselves into others’ homes using web cams and hidden cameras.
The entire argument centers on the trade-off that may be necessary in the president’s self-professed “War on Terror” – which the American people have, either explicitly or implicitly, accepted. We have, in a sense, hired the government to find terror suspects and stop their evil plans. In order to do that, Mr. Bush says, the government must have the power to tap people’s phones and read their e-mails without asking the courts for permission. Whether or not this is legal under the Constitution doesn’t seem to matter as much as whether or not the public will stand for it. We like the safety net provided by a judge’s approval or disapproval of the wiretap. It seems that our previous decisions are coming back to bite us. Americans in general approved of the Patriot Act (one of the pieces of legislation from which this controversy descends), but now are finding it hard to stomach the repercussions.
And the worst part of those repercussions? The loss of privacy, or so it would seem. The public was willing to accept the existence of Guantanamo Bay, albeit grudgingly. We were okay with torturing/mistreating prisoners in Abu Ghraib, sweeping Saudi connections to Al Qaeda under the rug, even overlooking and forgetting previous ties between the administration and Saddam Hussein (á la Halliburton vs. Iran, etc.) But as soon as it came out that Mr. Bush was authorizing phone taps without a court’s permission, we immediately heard talk of special investigations and other penalties. At the same time, the Bush administration is fervently hunting down the staff member who leaked that information to the media.
Let’s be honest – most of us will never be wiretapped. Unless we’ve done something serious to make them suspect us of having terrorist connections, our e-mails will never be read. I doubt the NSA is really interested in the latest Wal-Mart joke circulating the globe. But what bothers us is that it could be us. And in a government that we could easily put into power, these powers could easily be abused. Is it such a big leap for the government to go from investigating those with terrorist connections to investigating those with democratic connections?
George Orwell only thought his vision was scary. 1984? Ha! How about 2006?
Print
Email
