By Jonah Goldberg
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Self-proclaimed civil libertarians are up in arms over
the National Security Agency's massive database containing information about
whom we call and what we do on the Web. Defenders of the program say, "So
what?" Unless you're a terrorist, no one in the government will ever
bother to access that information.
That's not good enough, say civil libertarians.
"At least 850,000 people have security clearances
that give them access to this information," Tiffiniy Cheng of Fight for
the Future recently wrote on The Huffington Post. "That's the size of
Boston. Imagine if they leak information about a politician or business
leaders' personal life -- what about a prominent activist? The opportunities
for abuse and blackmail are endless; despite what some members of Congress have
claimed, the history of government surveillance programs is riddled with
abuses."
Farhad Manjoo of online Slate magazine agrees. The
"fundamental problem" with the NSA's surveillance program is that
it's amassing an all-too-tempting stockpile of information. "Someone has
access to that data, and that someone might not be as noble as (Edward)
Snowden. He could post everything online. He could sell it to identity thieves.
He could blackmail you. Or he might blackmail politicians, businesspeople, judges,
TSA agents, or use the data in some other nefarious way."
One needn't be a privacy absolutist, never mind a
paranoid conspiracy theorist, to believe that this is a legitimate concern. One
can even support the NSA's PRISM program and still want significant safeguards
against abuse.
What I have a hard time understanding, however, is how
one can get worked up into a near panic about an overreaching national security
apparatus while also celebrating other government expansions into our lives,
chief among them the hydrahead leviathan of the Affordable Care Act (aka
Obamacare). The 2009 stimulus created a health database that will store all
your health records. The Federal Data Services Hub will record everything
bureaucrats deem useful, from your incarceration record and immigration status
to whether or not you had an abortion or were treated for depression or
erectile dysfunction.
In other words, while the NSA can tell if you searched
the Web for "Viagra," the Hub will know if you were actually
prescribed the medication and for how long. Yes, there are rules for keeping
that information private, but you don't need security clearance or a warrant to
get it.
Then there's the IRS. We already have evidence of abuse
there. For instance, the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes
same-sex marriage, had its tax returns and private donor information leaked to
the news media last year, presumably in order to embarrass Mitt Romney (he gave
the group $10,000) and others during the presidential election.
And yet, worrying about NSA abuse is cast as high-minded
while worrying about Obamacare or the IRS is seen as paranoid. Why?
Part of the answer surely stems from the fact the
progressive dream of government-guaranteed health care is fashionable, while
opposition to it is perceived by liberal elites as backward or villainous.
But it goes deeper than that. There are basically two
visions of oppressive government, the Orwellian and the Huxleyan. In George
Orwell's "1984," the dystopia is a totalitarian police state, where
everyone is snooped on and bullied. In Aldous Huxley's "Brave New
World," most people are happy because the government takes care of them.
Culturally, Americans of all stripes recoil at anything
that seems like a step on the slippery slope toward the Orwellian state. But we
lack the same reflexive response against things that smack of the Huxleyan.
Sure, we make fun of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's
campaigns against smoking, fatty foods, large beverages and the like. And yes,
we mock the excesses of political correctness and a government hell-bent on
doing things for "our own good." But it's worth noting that Bloomberg
& Co. tend to win their battles in no small part because they're supposed
to be champions of progress.
Our Constitution -- and any definition of a legitimate
government -- requires the state to protect its citizens from threats such as
foreign terrorism. Governments can go too far fulfilling that duty, of course,
conjuring valid concerns of an Orwellian police state. And we routinely have
healthy debates over where that line is. If only we could have similarly
healthy debates about a government with an eternal license to do things for our
own good.
No comments:
Post a Comment