The official blog of the Libertarian Party
August 15, 2007
The ever-watching eyes
I have always heard the comparison between the Bush administration and Orwell's 1984, yet I had never actually read the book. So last weekend I went out and bought it, and finally got to start on it last night. I'm only three chapters into the book, but the parallels I once thought cliché now suddenly make sense. And the striking similarities make it all the more frightening.
Today, Drudge highlighted two stories that fit in with the LNC's recent media campaign against the Bush administration's blatant attack on civil liberties and privacy rights. The first article discusses the Director of National Intelligence's decision to open up spy satellite to domestic law enforcement agencies and some civilian agencies.
The U.S.'s top intelligence official has greatly expanded the range of federal and local authorities who can get access to information from the nation's vast network of spy satellites in the U.S.
The decision, made three months ago by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, places for the first time some of the U.S.'s most powerful intelligence-gathering tools at the disposal of domestic security officials. The move was authorized in a May 25 memo sent to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking his department to facilitate access to the spy network on behalf of civilian agencies and law enforcement.
Until now, only a handful of federal civilian agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey, have had access to the most basic spy-satellite imagery, and only for the purpose of scientific and environmental study.
The U.S. government justifies the expansion of the spy network's users in the name of domestic security, especially in regards to tracking smugglers and helping with border security.
This should scare the bejeezus out of every American.
Since satellite spying is basically a whole new ballgame for domestic surveillance, there aren't many guidelines or rules to regulate who can use the technology and for what purposes. The satellites provide high-resolution, detailed images of their target, so we're not just talking about a government version of Google Earth. This is real-time video footage with startling clarity.
"You are talking about enormous power," said Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group advocating privacy rights in the digital age. "Not only is the surveillance they are contemplating intrusive and omnipresent, it's also invisible. And that's what makes this so dangerous."
With elaborate camera surveillance systems being erected in major cities, warantless wiretaps on phones and now the ever-watching eye in the sky, one can reasonably expect that every aspect of a "private" life have been erased. I don't want to sound alarmist, but alarm seems rather appropriate at this point in time.
However, the eye in the sky isn't the only eye that will be watching you. The second article discusses the Transportation Safety Administration's new army of "specially trained" agents who look for facial expressions in airports that connote ill intent. These agents, called Behavior Detection Officers (I kid you not), will scan crowds and pull out those suspected of having not-so-nice intentions – like blowing things up.
At the heart of the new screening system is a theory that when people try to conceal their emotions, they reveal their feelings in flashes that Ekman, a pioneer in the field, calls "micro-expressions." Fear and disgust are the key ones, he said, because they're associated with deception.
Behavior detection officers work in pairs. Typically, one officer sizes up passengers openly while the other seems to be performing a routine security duty. A passenger who arouses suspicion, whether by micro-expressions, social interaction or body language gets subtle but more serious scrutiny.
A behavior specialist may decide to move in to help the suspicious passenger recover belongings that have passed through the baggage X-ray. Or he may ask where the traveler's going. If more alarms go off, officers will "refer" the person to law enforcement officials for further questioning.
So, the next time you're at the airport – angry and disgusted at the long security lines and your flight having been delayed – try to be civil with any TSA official. Should you give them any lip, you might just find yourself in a backroom being asked: "Do you know Osama bin Laden?" (yes, that happened).
The only positive feeling I got from the article was when reading the comments, and someone had posted a comment quoting 1984:
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer, though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing. " --Orwell's 1984
My how apt that seems.
Posted by Andrew Davis at August 15, 2007 05:03 PM
Reader Comments:
There are people, especially Libertarians, who have not read 1984? Anyone who hasn't should run out right now and read this book. The similarities are scary. We hear the term Big Brother all the time but few people really understand it.
While you are picking up 1984 you might as well grab Animal Farm by Orwell as well. Both are great books.
As for this development I just find it hard to believe.
I started saying this, sheesh, back when Clinton sent troops to Haiti? Somalia? Implemented 'Don't ask, don't tell"? I don't remember what event of the early 90s, but I've been using this line ever since:
1984 came and went, and no one even noticed.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
And yes, to be fair, Bush's arrogance and blatant contempt for the law are far, far beyond even Clinton's. Just as Clinton's arrogance and blatant contempt for the law were far, far beyond any of his predecessors. Where do ya think Bush learned it?
To me, Bush's actions show two things: 1) He has had the example set for him that he doesn't actually have to give a damn whether something's legal, especially in his 2nd term. And 2) a lot of the conceptualizing in his head about how to properly run a government was learned at the knee of a former DCI.
Thanks for a very interesting article.
With all due respect, you might want to think about incorporating Digg and Del.icio.us icons to the LP blog, so it's easier for readers to distribute your articles further. I submitted this to Digg, but it's a real pain to do that if you can't just click on a submission icon.
Digg will bring a lot more people to the LP site, and it's an simple way to get out the libertarian message to a much wider audience. It's easy to add the icon, just visit the Digg.com website. They have the code right there, along with instructions for installing it on your blog. :-)
Gee-whiz they wouldn't do that, would they Beaver?
...Ever notice how old phone, computer, etc. records seem to "come out" when 'they need them?'...
Gee-willikers how'd they get them, Beaver? Indeed!
(The horse left the barn, shat the bed, etc. a looooong time ago, Republicrats! You're apparently many days late and illion$ of 'dollars' short!) ;o)
Maybe sometime we can get at the root$ of evil/injustice instead of merely and constantly flailing at the branches as would some Republicrat ninny!.. ;o)
ATTRIBUTED TO ANDREW JACKSON:
"If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.
"The bold efforts that the present bank has made to control the government and the distress it has wantonly caused, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it...If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning."
I suggest Brave New World with 1984.
It is a nice counterpoint, since it presents the left-wing hell to contrast with the right-wing hell of 1984.
Libertarians alternatives are presented in FreeHold, the Probability Broach, and several other novels.
Attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Sorry for nagging about thi$..but the/you Republicrats NEVER even think about 'it!'..Someone's gotta do it!..Think of CLARK as your libertarian $uperman! ;o)
Yes Clark
you definitely seem like a "underwear on the outside" kind of guy
'Crazy' as I might appear to you Republicrats, Pete, I have at least given some honest thought as to 'monetary reality'..Unlike, I would bet, you..a suspected Republicrat money dummy whom I suspect has frequently worked his/her/its french fry chute about 'dollars'..some'thing'(s) of which I suspect you are worse than merely ignorant as to the nature, origin, etc.. ;o)
I can see the Republicrat fools now had they been born in some far, lost corner: Mindlessly cheering wildly in unison as their OOGA-BOOGA Chieftain and Medicine Men sentenced yet another virgin to volcanodom..
..Although some disagreement did exist amongst the OOGA BOOGA Tribe: The Republiboogas were vociferous in their belief the virgins should be killed at midnight, the Demoboogas at dawn.. Whilst the Oogaboogatarians and their leader Kneel OOGABOOGABOOR wanted to privatize the virgin slaughter..
(and, of course, 'legalize' the dreaded/feared OOGABOOGA weed) ;o)
Wow Clark
You could tell all of that about me from my one liner about you. Very insightful.
Wow. And he calls us uneducated and ignorant...
So, if there are terrorists trying to get on planes, how would the LP require that they be identified? Just asking, because that's what the voters will ask.
CREECH Wrote: "So, if there are terrorists trying to get on planes, how would the LP require that they be identified? Just asking, because that's what the voters will ask.
Perhaps you might inform any of 'these (Republicrat idiot) voters' that perhaps their god-damned fool Republicrat politicians might stop their planetary bullying, aggravating, cheating, acting as the hit squad for 'corpseration$' who do the same, etc. ad nauseam..The planetary judge, jury, and executioner!..indeed!..(also an expert on sports, Judge Judy and economics trivia!)
Get real, Republicrats!..Merely put the shoe on the other foot! MANY AMERICANS can just barely tolerate OUR AMERICAN MASTER$ HERE!..IMAGINE HOW THOUGHTFUL FOREIGNERS FEEL ABOUT BEING CONTROLLED BY, MURDERED BY, etc. YOU/YOUR (to them) FOREIGN REPUBLICRAT RICHARDHEADS! Can you Republicrat fools even imagine how you would feel were 'your country' under the control/influence of some apparent foreign, murdering, puppet master$!!??
(Possibly waaaaaay too much Republicrat TeeVee, etceterot for the brain-laundered Republicrats!) ;o)
I can see little CREECH and his Republicrat friends now: Rocks and Sticks pelting the beehive whilst they screech, "help me mommy, make the bees stop stinging me!"
Btw, a little MONETARY TIDBIT from 'The CLARK Institute of Monetary Reality: It appears some of the earliest coins from the US MINT bore the inscription: "Mind Your Business"..
It seems 'In God We Trust' hasn't worked as well, Republicrats!..indeed! ;o)
Didn't answer that question either. At least not in any sensible way I can understand as a "voter".
As a lifelong Libertarian, I still need to have the question answered. Obviously, if a private airline was running security, they have a right to demand whatever measures they want - from full search of possessions and naked body search to
letting anyone walk on board with no restrictions at all. Somehow, I think neither of these extreme options would draw many passengers. So, given the hatred engendered by U.S. policies
(and, guess what, a Libertarian administration would engender some too from homegrown socialists)
what kind of inconvenient searches is the LP willing to live with? If we attack measures which most "Republicrats" think prudent, we better have a better alternative.
Creech wrote:
> So, if there are terrorists trying to get on
> planes, how would the LP require that they be
> identified? Just asking, because that's what the
> voters will ask.
We won't. We'll just allow for people to carry out their own security. What hijacker would try to take over a plane if he knew that there was a 50/50 chance the guy next to him would pop a cap in his ass if he did? Really, why is it that there is //anyone// who is surprised that victim disarmament permits mass violence? It happens everywhere guns are banned: Schools, malls, planes, etc.
Get the guns //ON// the planes -- and then let the "terrorists" deal with it. The only planes they could get control of would be cropduster-sized; and as demonstrated by 9/11, you can't do much harm with one of those.
And Carl and IConrad probably wonder why LP candidates get miniscule vote totals. If these guys are the face of the LP (totally disconnected from reality) then why are we spending any time and money on libertarian political action?
YA CREECH, why do ?you/?your Republicrats apparently trust THE GOVERNMENT (an apparent band of strangers, weirdos, slackers, nitwits, etc., in general) rather than yourself and your fellow Americans in general as to 'your security??..'
BTW REPUBLICRATS, WHEN YOUR FAUCET OVER-RUNS YOUR SINK MAYBE YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT TURNING THE FAUCET OFF FIRST RATHER THAN MOPPING UP FIRST..
(Even on supposedly a 'libertarian' site I appear again inundated with Rush Limbaugh diltdoheads, etc. Republicreeps galore! Can't get away from them!!) ;o)
Creech, I get what you're saying, but if we were to allow private airlines to provide their own security, they could use whatever measures they wanted, including ones matching our current security process. They would not be forced to rely on extremes because it would be up to them to find a balance between profit and total security. The difference is no one's rights would be violated. The extremes are not the only options. If an airline chose to allow passengers to carry guns, I would not be against it, but constitutional market forces would dictate that better than unconstitutional goverment actions.
In the last 20 years, how many planes have been hijacked? Now over that same period, how many people have caused fatal automobile accidents because they were on a cell phone?
Our biggest problem is that members of our government think they always need to DO SOMETHING. Congress is always looking for MORE LAWS to enact. Has it ever occurred to anyone that we have ENOUGH laws?
Have any of our presiditial candidates said anything about the restoration of privacy in America?
| 
There are people, especially Libertarians, who have not read 1984? Anyone who hasn't should run out right now and read this book. The similarities are scary. We hear the term Big Brother all the time but few people really understand it.
While you are picking up 1984 you might as well grab Animal Farm by Orwell as well. Both are great books.
As for this development I just find it hard to believe.
Posted by: Chad at August 16, 2007 01:46 PM