ACLU Weighs In On Surveillance Society

DeAshcroft writes "In the wake of the TIA (and logo-morphing attempts to be less scary), the ACLU has issued a report discussing the increased use of technology to erode privacy and the decreased use of law to defend it. Take your own spin. Not a light read (24 pages), but it includes some points to ponder. I haven't seen a response from Poindexter on the John Poindexter Awareness Office, but maybe the ACLU will come to his aid when he's had enough. Then again, they don't seem to be collecting much information."

Comments

I'll have to agree with the ACLU here

[GuyMannDude]

If you do stop and think about how the pieces are going to fit together, things get pretty creepy. In an earlier slashdot story I wrote a comment about how UAVs being used presemably to protect us against terrorists here in the States could easily be modified to do basically whatever. And, let's face it, UAVs are pretty obvious. Think about the intelligence data that could be obtained by less obvious sources. Bit by bit, they can collect a wealth of information about you.

The problem with making concessions on personal liberties to aid the war on terror is that there isn't going to be any definite end point of this "war". Traditional wars end when one side comes to the bargaining table. This war is pretty ill-defined and so no clear "end" will ever exist. Once those liberties are gone, I don't think we're going to see them coming back anytime soon.

GMD

You have nothing to fear...

[Tuxinatorium]

Unless...
A.) The info falls into the wrong hands (spammers or people who would use it against you even though you haven't done something illegal)

B.) The Gov't abuses the info against people who haven't done anything illegal

C.) You have done something illegal (whether it's a just law or not is another issue entirely; the law is the law)

[/devil's advocate]

The problem arises due to the fact that not all laws are just or should be universally enforced. The very soul of the purpose of having the 4th amendment is to make the government impotent at enforcing unjust and oppressive laws. All laws against "victimless crimes"* are just that, and those are precisely the laws that privacy most inhibits the government from enforcing. It's kind of a fail-safe method of stopping the government from turning into an oppressive majoritarian state that persecutes those who have hurt no one.

*A "Victimless Crime" is any act that does not harm any unconsenting third party or a third party that is not competant to give consent. Any law against a "Victimless Crime" is oppressive, in my book.