Personal Privacy...A Comment and Response

In response to my thoughts on Personal Privacy, I received, what I thought to be, an enlightened and thoughtful comment, worthy of further discussion and reply.  I share the comment of “ocoastperson” with you below and add my comments and thoughts.

I do want to thank ocoast, if I may presume to be on a first-name basis, for his/her comments and invite anyone, whether they agree or disagree, to comment.  I am fond of saying, I have defended the right to free speech with the offer of my life, and while I may not support or believe in what they do, even the KKK has the right to express an anti-Semitic sentiment in Skokie, Illinois…but as usual, I digress.  The comment of “ocoastperson”:

Other bloggers have tied the self-claiming libertarians with authoritarian personalities. Authoritarian personalities generally seem to view police of all stripes as realizations of themselves. Plus, they enjoy other disfavored people being pushed around.

Speaking more clearly, authoritarian personalities not only want order, they view the world as us vs. them. The police are in some sense the enforcers of this, by controlling and punishing the them.

Thus the authoritarian side of most libertarians makes them blind to the actual fact that others, the ones in control, can decide at any point to make THEM (the authoritarian) one of the bad guys - they just can't see it.

Your post contains several good points but is actually quite restrained in its implications. On the one side, existing police technology can take an image of a license plate and pull information from a police data base about the car owner, acting much like your [driver’s license electronic] strip or a transponder.

On the other hand, the true way to easily recognize individuals would be to place something unremovable on or in them. If radiation and recharging concerns can be dealt with, this "personal transponder" is the logical solution to the police state's ever growing need to know everything about everyone. The personal transponder could be coupled to an embedded information space and computer that could be updated on the fly by police (of every stripe). Plus read by employers, etc. .. random drug testing results, credit history, .. it could be required to be read as a part of every purchase ...

All necessary to keep us secure, folks!

Taking the technology to the logical conclusion tends to dwarf even the predictions of Orwell's "1984".  I am not sure that even Orwell's dystopia could envision satellite surveillance and computers, but correctly predicted the iniquitousness of television (although they had telescreens that sent as well as received).

Sadly, I am not sure that we have not reached the point where technology has not become so pervasive that it can no longer be controlled (pardon the multiple negatives).  There will always be someone that will use the technology to their own advantage (hackers), and politicians are no exception.  I can't help but wonder if an Orwellian Democracy is already upon us.  While people scoff at the idea, because of the source, mostly, can the electronic capability of the government be far from what was depicted in “Enemy of the State”?

In the movie “Enemy of the State, Will Smith does not really beat the system as much as he manages to manipulate it, with the help of someone that knows the technology (Gene Hackman), by the way, to obtain a favorable outcome.  Just as an aside, does anyone think the Congressman that was the proponent of that National Security Act was not a Republican?  Keep in mind that the movie was made in 1998 and the USA Patriot Act was just a gleam in the idea of some xenophobe, that had to protect us at all costs, including our privacy and civil rights.

The "true believers" that are willing to do anything based on their perception of what is best for everyone.  They will always be the most dangerous people in the world, for they will do anything to achieve their goal(s), and they will never believe they were not acting in the best interests of society.  As much as they may be despised, I am not sure even Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or even Osama bin Laden believed themselves to be acting wrongly.  Parenthetically, I wonder if Richard Nixon ever came to the conclusion that what he did was wrong, or if he just regretted getting caught.

I agree with everything you have said, and would only add one defining comment.  Police are not all authoritarians to start off with; many of them get that way over time.  FSU Professor George Kirkham gave an outstanding explanation for this in his study and resulting book, "Signal Zero", (police code for a gun).  It is available through Amazon and is probably more relevant today than it was when it was written in 1973.  It shows how police work tends to create the us vs them mentality.

I wonder when we all have to report to be chipped?   Hey, they do it to pets…it must be good for you, right?

Thoughts on Memorial Day

On this Memorial Day, it is important to note a few things.  The first is that this is a holiday for the soldiers who fought for our country and, as Lincoln described, “gave that last full measure of devotion.”  They died for our country.  As a military veteran, I am fortunate not to be a member of this honored class of individual.  My holiday is Veterans Day, which I am quick to point out whenever anyone offers me thanks for my service on this most hallowed of days.

Those of us that celebrate Veterans Day, as opposed to Memorial Day, have a unique perspective on Memorial Day….”There, but by the grace of God, go I.”  It matters little whether you were a combat veteran that served on a front line somewhere, or whether you were what military personnel refer to a “REMF” (Rear Echelon Mother F**ker).  You know that there are those that died and you were not one of them, whether by virtue of luck, skill, training or Devine intervention, you survived combat or you were assigned somewhere that you were not at great risk of being killed.  While the feeling is probably more poignant for the combat veteran, those that served in support roles still have the feeling.

The feeling is a sort of relieved guilt.  We feel, at the same time, “Thank God it was him instead of me” and “Why him and not me?”  Those of us that issued orders to soldiers that died in the line of duty based on those orders will carry a special guilt the rest of our lives and will always, in the deep dark recesses of out minds, wonder if we had done it just a bit differently, would they be alive?

The second thing that is important to note is a more political way of thinking.  While I am loathe to politicize a holiday that honors our military dead, I can think of no greater an impact a political decision has on anyone than to potentially cause their death.  When a politician, be it the President or the Congress of the United States, makes a decision to go to war, engage in some sort of unilateral military intervention or become part of a coalition that undertakes military action, there is a likelihood someone is going to die as a result of that decision.  I can think of no more awesome responsibility and no more direct impact.  The eminent military scholar Karl von Clausewitz said, “War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means.”  Thus, it seems appropriate to discuss these decisions in a political context.

All the above being said, it is entirely possible to discuss, argue and disagree about a war and not dishonor the troops who fight it.  The political Right does an exceedingly good job of wrapping themselves in the flag and screams at the top of their lungs “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” every time someone disagrees with the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They point the finger and scream blasphemer at anyone that dare asks the question, “Should we be fighting these wars.  They do so for the purpose of limiting debate and the robust discussion in which we should engage before, after, and yes, even during those wars.  This is a profoundly political use of our troops.

Again, as a man that has served, I can tell you that I want the politicians of this country debating, on a regular basis, whether to send me into combat.  I want them to be in some sort of agreement that I need to be fighting and that the purpose for my sacrifice is worthy.  I know there will be disagreement, but if the topic is always open for debate, then there is less likelihood that I, and those that have followed, will be sacrificed needlessly.  However, I resent the fact that support for our troops is being used by politicians to stymie that debate and being used to prevent that robust discussion that allows for careful consideration of the sacrifices young men make for their country.

Allow me to use liberally the words of a great man, Abraham Lincoln, as they are still perfectly appropriate today.  On this Memorial Day, in the name of all that have given the last full measure of devotion, let us commit to a rich, full, robust, open and honest debate, every chance we get, that allows us to consider carefully why precious lives are being sacrificed, and that that sacrifice is not in vain.  Let government of the people, by the people, for the people, not perish from the Earth.