Is Big Brother Watching You?
Today the Post is following the Wall Street Journal on a story that has fascinated (or frightened) a number of our readers: it says that the Bush administration has approved a plan to give law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers. Most of those who have commented this morning express some concern; several allude to George Orwell's Big Brother of 1984, but some think it's a great idea.
dcdoug (no relation) said, "I thought the enemy was not on our shores. What good reason would Bush have to spy on Americans? If the reason is to look for staging areas wouldn't that be outside of our border? Can you say Posse Commitatus?," a reference to a law which, broadly described, limits the power of the federal government to use the military for local law enforcement.
And munkle said, "One Nation, Under Surveillance, With Liberty And Justice For None.."
orthodoxzionist wrote, "Your article's concerns highlight the rational for having an intelligence (data) agency that is separate from law enforcement agencies."
But oneoftheboys opined that "Had the President decided not to authorize satellite surveillance, the majority of you cry babies would say he was not doing enough. This is not about loosing any rights or freedom, but more about providing the latest tools to help our dedicated law enforcement officials and first responders perform their jobs better... If you have nothing to hide . . . why worry? But then again, we are talking about Democrats and liberals . . . Boo ! ! !"
And lastyear53 urges selective use. "Ok, if you're not breaking criminal laws, then you should really have nothing to worry about. If someone is stealing from my community, I want something done about it. If someone is illegal dumping trash, I want something done about it. If you're selling drug on the corner, I want something done about it. If you're speeding, well that's your business as long as it is not hurting someone else or taxpayers...."
jesaja said, "Big Brother Bush is gonna get you. And there's nothing you can do against it! It is all too late now to object. Vote. It will not roll back the electronic police state that has been set in place. Do you really think that the Democrats will reverse all this? They're all in it... Welcome to 1984."
And now I bring you excerpts from a civilized discussion between nomad_990 and lardlad:
nomad_990: "...Satellites aren't like the cameras that the Brits have on every street corner. They can't just loiter in space watching you. They just take a snap shot and keep moving..."
lardlad: "This isn't meant to be a flame, but please take the time to understand what "geosynchronous orbit" means."
nomad_990: "lardlad: I do know what geosync orbit is... A communication, weather, or electronic listening satt 99% of the time are in geosync orbits because they appear to 'hang' overhead..."
lardlad: "Nomad - It seems like you've done your homework. But riddle me this: why is "real-time" imaging repeatedly stressed in this article? If there are truly a handful of satellites that only fly over 1-2 times per day, snapping pictures and moving on, how would anything remotely "real-time" be possible?..."
nomad_990: "lardlad: I know! Miracles do happen! :) Real-time can mean live, no delays. What I think they're meaning here is being able to get pictures a lot faster then they do now. If they use the commercial satts they could be waiting a week or more and pay a hefty price tag for it. By using the government satts... they save money and can get pictures within, depending on the speed of the request, hours..."
This could go on all day, obviously.
By Doug Feaver |
August 16, 2007; 9:13 AM ET
Previous: Iraq and Petraeus |
Next: Bush the Dissident
Posted by: H R Coursen | August 19, 2007 1:45 PM
The point of this whole exercise, from the government's perspective, is not to enable spying on whatever you're doing in your backyard. The legislation is designed to legally permit the use of national assets during a crisis or terrorist event, and to create a process to use national assets to assist border surveillance. In other words, the legislation states under what conditions the US can collect and exploit imagery of sites in the US. This is legislation designed to protect US citizens, not to enable spying on them. I have to ask a broader question, which is, "Why would the US not use every tool available to it to guard its borders?" Are we supposed to close our eyes and tie our hands behind our backs? Where's the sense in that? We should also remember that satellite imagery from commercial sensors is readily available, covering every square inch of the US. If we follow the arguments out, why not ban that imagery as well? China has. And what a bastion of freedom that country is.
Posted by: DKW | August 18, 2007 5:48 AM
Everyone has something to hide. Let me give a historical example for motivation. Before the 1930's Jews of Europe and Germany in particular, proudly declared their faith in Census records.
That same information was used decades later to correctly identify and round up Jews across Europe to implement the the most despicable act of human history.
How about another historical lesson: McCarthyism and the Red Scare. People who had attended a communist rally 10 years ago were being hauled before the McCarthy committee and jailed! for my thoughts on other subjects see my blog at: http://entropicpolitics.blogger.com
Posted by: Christian Bongiorno | August 17, 2007 6:30 PM
In 1976 the Church Committee published this report.
"This committee has examined a realm of governmental information collection which has not been governed by restraints comparable to those in criminal proceedings. We have examined the collection of intelligence about the political advocacy and actions and the private lives of American citizens. That information has been used covertly to discredit the ideas advocated and to "neutralize" the actions of their proponents.As Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone warned in 1924, when he sought to keep federal agencies from investigating "political or other opinions" as opposed to "conduct...forbidden by the laws":
When a police system passes beyond these limits, it is dangerous to the proper administration of justice and to human liberty, which it should be our first concern to cherish.
...There is always a possibility that a secret police may become a menace to free government and free institutions because it carries with it the possibility of abuses of power which are not always quickly apprehended or understood.
Our investigation has confirmed that warning. We have seen segments of our Government, in their attitudes and action, adopt tactics unmorthy of a democracy, and occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian regimes. We have seen a constant pattern in which programs initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what witnesses characterized as "vacuum cleaners", sweeping in information about lawful activities of American citizens.
The tendency of intelligence activities to expand beyond their initial scope is a theme which runs through every aspect of our investigative findings. Intelligence collection programs naturally generate ever-increasing demands for new data. And once intelligence has been collected, there are strong pressures to use it against the target.
Food for thought.
Posted by: greene247 | August 17, 2007 6:09 PM
ghrthjkhkuk
Posted by: vgnjty | August 16, 2007 1:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Thank you, Greene, for your thoughtful comment. Those of us whose phones were tapped during the Vietnam War know how it feels to be considered "subversive" while exercising our rights as citizens. The Bill of Rights may have an occasional footnote -- one cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater unless a fire exists -- but the current administration has gone further in abridging our rights than any since the despicable internment of Japanese Americans in the early 1940s. We are at risk and few dare even say that much. I think Bush's campaign of fear has succeeded.