Privacy and Security Advocates: It’s a Good Thing We Can’t All Get Along
Achieving a balance between privacy and security is critically important to the survival of our American democracy. At this juncture in our history, the threat of terrorism has caused us to restrict some rights to privacy for the sake of national security. Without a certain level of security then American lives will be lost. Conversely, without a certain level of privacy, the American way of life will be lost. And at times, we as a nation have made mistakes when the pendulum has swung too far either way. Fortunately, we seem to keep returning to a state of equilibrium. It’s the howls of protest that arise when proponents of one side earns a win over the other, the constant, never-ending debate that keeps both sides in check and ensures a perpetual balance.
Yesterday, an article in Wired stirred up another great, democracy-affirming debate that caused quite a ruckus with Internet denizens. In U.S. Airport Screeners Are Watching What You Read, Ryan Singel reports that,
“International travelers concerned about being labeled a terrorist or drug runner by secret Homeland Security algorithms may want to be careful what books they read on the plane. Newly revealed records show the government is storing such information for years.
“Privacy advocates obtained database records showing that the government routinely records the race of people pulled aside for extra screening as they enter the country, along with cursory answers given to U.S. border inspectors about their purpose in traveling. In one case, the records note Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Gilmore’s choice of reading material, and worry over the number of small flashlights he’d packed for the trip.”
(For the FOIA documents found by the Identity Project, see Homeland Security’s Data Vacuum Cleaner In Action.)
And this was all it took to spark another great debate. At the bottom of Mr. Singel’s article you’ll find 47 comments, taking up both sides:
Writes “scorpion”:
“Airport today, anytown street corner tomorrow! Afterall, couldn’t a terrorist be moving about practically anywhere, traveling by any means? Why should I fear to be potentially carrying the ‘wrong kind of book’ under my arm, in that I may suffer harrassment from police, or possibly get black-listed as a dissident (into a government database)? Can we even count on these security personnel to be advanced literature scholars, and not simply interpreting & analyzing reading material on limited knowledge and a few “catch words” in the title?”
Countered by “ed34222,”who writes:
“Not sure what the big deal is. There is not expectation of privacy at the airport or border. They are storing info about people that they may need to pay more attention to. They are not interfering with the travel of those people unless a good reason exists. They are not telling anyone what to read. The assumption that terrorists will somehow know what not to do or read or whatever doesn’t make sense … unless our media tells them. The idea isn’t thought policing. The idea is getting enough intelligence to thwart the next attack.”
Over on Slashdot, there’s 450 comments — most are not printable here. But profanity-laced diatribes aside, the debate follows the same back and forth between privacy and security advocates. And a search on Technorati turns up 85 blogs who’ve posted on this subject, including BoingBoing, the second most popular blog in the world. Even bibliophile bloggers got into the act — here, here and here.
However, just at the debate was getting frothy, Mr. Singel published an update to his original story, 17 hours later. In Homeland Security Not Interested in Your Books, DHS Says, a DHS spokesperson said,
“I flatly reject the premise that we care at all about the latest Tom Clancy novel a traveler is reading. But the fact does remain that CBP officials are going to be mindful of whether there is anything that suggests there could be possible violations of a law associated with a traveler or items in possession of a traveler as they make an admissibility decision about that traveler. That is what they are charged by Congress to do.”
They’re also charged with looking for evidence of drug smuggling. And in Mr. Singel’s original story, he wrote that the book Mr. Gilmore brought through security was “Drugs and Your Rights” and the flashlight he carried had pot leaves on them. So yes, he got a little extra attention from security. When nothing was found, he was allowed to travel on.
Ultimately, this debate went nowhere. It did however serve to remind the securicrats that the privacy advocates will always be watching and blogging. And if our Founding Fathers had blogs, you know Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would have gotten into a flame war of these two lines:
“He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” — Franklin
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” — Jefferson
When it comes to the need for security versus the right to privacy, the pendulum is always moving back and forth. And thanks to the balance of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution and the advocates on both sides of the debate, this pendulum has so far always found equilibrium.
Subscribe to this blog