Is there a privacy crisis? You bet. But what is privacy? That seems like the better question. It's being violated left and right, we think, but how can you know? Does privacy have something to do with contraception? The Supreme Court seems to think so, or at least it did, yet now those selfsame dictators of national law have no qualms with wiretapping and the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the President, even though such authority is explicitly granted to Congress in the Constitution. Good deal, huh? Habeas Corpus and the attending violations of civil liberties in the name of security are surely as much a violation of privacy as the proscription on the use of a vacuum to terminate pregnancy violates the privacy of women. That the sanctity of one's private life is in the lurch is really unquestionable, the true question is what ever to do about it? Are we, and the rest of the Western World, doomed as individuals to a vicious, inexorable, tumble into Orwellian madness in the name of safety, or patriotism, or commerce, or even freedom itself? It seems we are, for as individuals there seems to be little fight left in us.
There is less of a privacy crisis than there is a definition and obedience crisis. The notion of "privacy" itself begs for definition, and that definition is sure to be as contentious as the debate over the extent of the violation, or lack thereof, of privacy. Since privacy is ephemeral rather physical it is utterly open to the cheerful conjure and convolution so common among politicians of this, and sadly all, age. This means we are arguing over a political football, and either side of the argument will result in greater control by those cheerful conjurers we elect.
Consider the private sector "impositions" on privacy that are the common citations in these sort of arguments; the data kept by credit companies, retailers, the bank, the insurance guy, Walt Disney, and the cable guy, along with that freely offered on blogs and so forth. How is this to be stopped, pray tell? Are we to allow new laws to be constructed, along with the agencies, enforcers, and red tapish snarl that accompanies such legislation? Well, if so, then in the process of regulating such activity, the government will itself violate the privacy of private companies, and individuals. There is no workable way to identify a violation without the ability to surveil at will within the organization, or indeed the sacrosanct areas of the individual. This means that to establish pro-privacy legislation is to violate privacy in the process, if it is done by legislative fiat. The only way to limit impositions on privacy are to rely on individuals to bring suit against those who violate their privacy. Indeed, this is the only way to no violate the privacy of the individual by not taking action on their behalf. This is, currently, not likely to gain much ground since our "litigious" society is another supposed "problem". So, the definition of privacy has been occluded, and the only real way to police violations has been demonized, meaning that the outcry from civil libertarians over private sector violations of privacy can only lead to the imposition of new laws that will also defile civil liberties from the public sector. Great.
Since privacy faces the crisis of definition, public sector trampling of privacy faces the same degree of rhetorical convolution that the private sector faces, with much more immediate and dire consequences. The veritable abuses of privacy that we have seen in recent, and not so recent, years are not a crisis of privacy, but rather a crisis of obedience. Americans, to a great extent, have lost the rebellious spirit that is requisite to maintain personal privacy, not to mention freedom. The evidence is the willingness of Americans to not only remove their shoes for inspection by a foul tempered employee, they are willing to touch their forelock to the representatives of government in the form of quiet acquiescence. The question is if they do this out of fear of repercussions, or simple respect. Since the airline screening process involves the removal of shoes, and the potential for additional screening at the discretion of the screeners, frankly the idea that people are not frightened during this direct violation of their Fourth Amendment rights is specious at best, and outright propaganda at worst. Here again, however, the issue is not privacy, but obedience, the willing acceptance of the impositions forced upon them by the government that supposedly exists by their consent.
As Americans, we cannot expect to retain our idea of privacy, or indeed freedom itself, unless we are willing as individuals to define what that notion means to us, and stand up for it, for ourselves rather than by seeking government to do it for us. The constant obedience to government will lead only to more government until utter tyranny is reached. The only true hope is that the process is cyclical, and that some, likely distant, future generation will reclaim dignity.
©2008 Michael Stahl, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Sunday, May 11, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, May 11, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Michael Stahl only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael Stahl is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Michael Stahl of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Michael Stahl |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: David Koresh
Date: 2008-05-11 16:30:46
If I am raping and murdering women on my own property, then that is my right and the government should not be violating my 4th Ammendment rights in order to stop my actions, nor should they violate the terrorist's rights to privacy in order for them to plan the explosions at a Federal Building in Okalhoma City. Privacy should never be violated in order to stop a crime, that would cause us to live with less freedom. The FLDS Ranch in Texas is a great example of the government doing just that. \
WHY DO THEY THINK IT IS RIGHT TO STOP ME FROM DOING WHAT EVER IT IS THAT I WANT TO DO?
Posted By: Mike Stahl
Date: 2008-05-11 20:25:39
No, and honestly I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse. The point is those things that cause no harm, rather than those that do.....That being said, you have some proof of crimes in Texas that the rest of us are not privy to? Last I checked that whole debacle came about as the result of a fraudulent telephone call-a felony in itself that will never be prosecuted. Please correct me if I'm wrong somehow.
Allowing the government to violate its own laws won't protect you or anyone else, it will simply allow greater loss of individiuality...perhaps that's not so important?
Thank's for reading
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-05-12 07:38:30
Mike -
Interesting premise, thumbs up. Speaking for myself, I disagree with your hope that wanting liberty is a cyclical function that ebbs and flows. In history, most societies that ended up as police states had a lot of trouble for quite a long time. Instead I hope for a step function where something/one happens and galvanizes an overwhelming reaction. Until then, rebellion against subjugation for me, and if its by myself, well thats just too bad for me! .
In liberty, Jake
Posted By: Republicae
Date: 2008-05-12 09:50:13
The government has assumed ownership of the individual under the ideology of "the general will" and "the common good". Under such an assumption it has usurped most of the authority that the individual has over himself, his life or the responsibility of the future direction he chooses to take. This is a particular pernicious form of socialism that must rely upon heavy centralization of power. It stems from the political philosophy of Jean-Jacque Rousseau and states that the individual is not capable of actually maintaining his life without direction and intervention from the "democratic majority" and therefore the "general will."
Posted By: Mike Stahl
Date: 2008-05-12 22:17:54
To Jake, my champion of the Constitiution, I agree, for what it's worth, but, ours has not had that selfsame lot of trouble for a long time? Longer certainly than the Weimar Republic endured it? Accept it, in the next election,those to the left and right of you shall select collectivism....I'd love some alternative..but, is John McCain not collectivist? If not,pray God please share(I find listing the collectivist tendencies of Hill or Obama pointless). That from an agnostic, fyi.
To Republicae,
My point in a sentence you mannaged. If only the Guillotine found better vertabrae or Mr. Burr had found insult much sooner. But such is life, and our fate is to pretend freedom in the face of, far too often, our Masters.
Posted By: Mike Stahl
Date: 2008-05-12 22:28:37
Please do subtract an "n" from managed, Rupublicae. Thx. The problem is cheap Latin American wine, obviously.