“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Government data-mining and collection of personal information has reached unprecedented levels. Our electronic age has made gathering of personal information relatively easy and it is done, according to the government, for reasons of national security.
But, as Benjamin Franklin admonished, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
But aren’t these dangerous times that require extraordinary steps? That type of thinking is at least a century old. Thomas Sowell points out in his essay “Dismantling America” that “It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call ‘the needs of the times’…The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting ‘the needs of the times’– as they choose to define those needs.”
If government data-mining and snooping could be justified on national security grounds, it has gone far beyond that. It has become a weapon of coercion (e.g.,see IRS versus the Tea Party), and it can be used to influence elections.
Tucsonan Barney Brenner addresses that latter issue in a TownHall article “Data Mining and Elections.”
In the article, Brenner points out that data-mining “provides an ideal profile of your associations, affiliations and leanings.” Such information was used to influence the outcome of recent elections in Arizona and Colorado and will be used in the 2014 election.
Brenner also points out that when data-mining could actually have been used beneficially for a national security issue, the Obama administration blew it by ignoring the Russian warnings about those responsible for the Boston marathon bombing.
Our schools have also been invaded by the data miners as part of the new “Common Core” standards for education. (See my article: “The Dark Side of Common Core Standards for Education.)
I received an email from a parent of a student in the Vail, Arizona school district. He was complaining about the content of the school’s “Annual Notice to Parents” dated July 1, 2013.
It seems that the Vail School District may want to collect information on students to include the following:
1. Political affiliations or beliefs of the students or student’s parent.
2. Mental or psychological problems of the students or student’s family.
3. Sex behavior or attitudes.
4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior.
5. Critical appraisals of others with whom respondents have close family relationships.
6. Legally recognized privileged relationships, such as with lawyers, doctors, or ministers.
7. Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or parents.
8. Income other than as required by law to determine program eligibility.
The notice said that parents may opt out of certain questions by sending a written notice to the principal by August 31, 2012 (sic). A misprint?
In 1933, the citizens of Germany signed away their rights “for the protection of the people and the state.” We know how that turned out. But that was an extreme case. It can’t happen here, right? Besides, we don’t have to actually sign away our rights, just bend the fourth amendment a little so we can more easily go after the domestic terrorists; just give up some of our privacy so the government can search our papers, tap our phones and email without obtaining specific warrants to do so. No harm in that, is there? James Madison thought there was when he wrote the following: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
Some would argue that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. However, be warned, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” (William Pitt in a speech to the House of Commons, Nov. 18, 1783). Was it “necessary” during World War II to send Americans of Japanese descent to camps in the name of national security? Our Constitution applies all the time, not merely when it is convenient. We can’t make exceptions just because it might be easier to catch the bad guys. To do so puts us all in danger.
Copyrighted by Jonathan DuHamel. Reprint is permitted provided that credit of authorship is provided and linked back to the source.