How Violations of Privacy and Broad Brush Strokes Diminish Human Dignity

Between the seemingly daily revelation of the federal (and even local) government's violations of Americans' privacy and the media and political reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict, the constant disregard for the human dignity has become tiresome.

Over the past couple months, we have learned that the federal government is collecting metadata on our phone calls (e.g. who we've called and how long we talked with them) and that local police departments are able to take photos of our licence plates, sometimes keeping such photos (and a snapshot of our location at a given time) indefinitely. Obamacare includes numerous ways in which the IRS will collect information regarding not only our income, but our health insurance, and often share this with other agencies. Immigration reform proposals have included national biometric databases, and gun control proposals have included changes to HIPAA regulations to allow doctors to disclose mental health information about patients.  Common core educational policy includes massive data tracking of American children.

The federal government collects all of this data on our lives (often "accidentally" disclosing it) often without our consent. Essentially, we become naked before the government, in an informational sense-- our private data laid bare. This diminishes human dignity...and our liberty. The government knows (or has in place the potential to know) the intricate details of our comings and goings, and this makes us less free. It also means that the government knows our uniqueness, but only in the terms of categorical or continuous variables in some massive database that would put Karl Rove to shame.

While the surveillance state and a "big brother" government seek to know the unique details of our lives, the paternalism of such ideology also seeks to paint us with broad brush strokes of generalities. When a horrific shooting occurs in Aurora, Colorado or Newtown, Connecticut or when a  FBI investigation or trial verdict violates preconceptions, the President calls for soul searching. In doing so he paints Americans with a broad brush--all Americans have the meditations in our heart to kill or to act in a racist manner.  We're a nation of cowards, according to Eric Holder. Somehow the government that seeks the unique details of our lives, also paints us as violent and racist across the board--even while they rightfully call out those who paint African Americans with broad brush strokes. This violates our dignity. We are not seen as unique individuals judged by the content of character through our words and actions. We are prejudged as needing to soul search because of the actions of others, not ourselves.

Again, the government seeks to become god. However, the true God both knows the number of hairs on our heads ( Matthew 10:30), and He does so without having to keep a massive database. He has discerned the words on our lips before we speak them (Psalm 139:4).  He knows the motivations of our hearts. The true "prism" is not a data mining surveillance government surveillance program, nor the "soul searching" prism through which the President often patronizing instructs us to view the world. The true prism by which we must see those around us is by through the prism of everyone being created in the image of God. This is the only way to ensure we are treating others with the dignity they deserve. God is the only one who truly knows such intricate details of our lives, and He is the only one who knows our motivations.

Crossposted here and here.

How the Federal Government Has Gone "Animal Farm" on the Right to Privacy

In George Orwell's Animal Farm, two young pigs--Napoleon and Snowball-- take control of the farm when  Old Major, a boar, dies. As part of their "revolution", the pigs create a series of laws for all the animals of the manor. One of these laws is "all animals are equal". As the pigs gain more and more control and manipulate their fellow animals even further, the series of laws devolve into a single law--all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. In some ways, this seems to be the law written by our governmental leaders today. Looking at the events of the month of April alone, our government seems to have written an overarching law-- "all people deserve privacy, but some people deserve privacy more than others".

Last Friday, President Obama became the first sitting president to speak at a Planned Parenthood event. In his demagogic speech, the President highlighted the Roe v. Wade decision and its affirmation of a woman's  "right to privacy". Later in his speech, he tried to characterize pro-life legislation as wanting to come between a woman and her doctor. However, when it comes to the privacy of gun owners, the President and some members of the Senate of both parties believe that the government could come between a woman or man and her or his doctor when it comes to asking questions about guns in the home. The gun control legislation that was ultimately defeated earlier this month would have made exceptions to HIPPA laws (laws that were made to protect patients' privacy) allowing for more mental health information to be entered the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).  Why is it OK for a woman's right to privacy to be respected when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to the second amendment?

When Boston police and federal officials were searching for Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev earlier this month following the horrific bombing at the Boston marathon, they went house-to-house searching for the suspected bomber, as depicted in this video:

 

As my friend Stacy Drake at Conservatives4Palin wrote in a post last week:

The images of what happened in Boston last Friday should disturb any Constitution-loving American. The very reason the Fourth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights was to protect Americans from overly broad search and seizures. The Amendment states that authorities must have “probable cause” before searching “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” As in, they or another witness saw the suspect run into a house, or they had good intelligence that suspect was hiding in a specific location. That wasn’t the case and the FBI and police over-stepped their legal boundaries, according to the Fourth Amendment.

She is absolutely right. While, yes, officials were looking for a terror suspect, there were no search warrants issued. There was not "probable cause" that the folks who were led out of their homes at gunpoint were guilty of anything . Meanwhile, as more information has come out about the Tsarnaev brothers, it is unknown whether or not they had taxpayer funded cell phones, These cell phones may have been used to help coordinate and communicate the attack. The reason given? The FCC said that answering such questions would violate privacy laws. Why were the Tsarnaev brothers' privacy seen as more important than that of other Bostonians? Why was the innocents' privacy violated while the privacy of the accused was protected?

Additionally, the House passed a cybersecurity bill (CISPA) on April 18th, which would allow the federal government to collect information from corporations without a warrant and essentially nullify whatever privacy policies those companies had in place. Supporters of the bill believe this would help ward off hackers, but its vague language could very easily lead to an abuse of power. The bill is essentially dead in the Senate, but this is not the first time that members of the federal government have tried to usurp the fourth amendment when it comes to the internet, nor will it be the last. Additionally, the bill is rife with potential cronyism. Congress is trying to infringe on constitutional rights to pad their own pocketbooks.

Again, the federal government has a privacy double standard. Earlier this month, with unanimous support from both chambers of Congress and the president, a key portion of the STOCK Act was repealed. This means that legislative and executive staffers do not have to disclose their potential conflicts of interests, such as stock holdings, online. Congress, the President, the Vice president, and candidates would have the option of putting such information online, but it would no longer be mandatory. While Congress is trying to push legislation that could potential make private information available to the government, the government has decreased the amount of information--information that allows constituents to hold their leaders accountable--accessible to the public.

Those who write the laws should not be above the laws, but what should we expect from people who think they are "more equal" than the rest of us?

Crossposted here and here.