There's a Slashdot entry about a McCain "security" proposal that would record peoples' detailed travel history. This has got me thinking (again) about the whole issue of security and privacy, so I think I'll write some down some thoughts.
The way Slashdot describes today's issue:
ZDnet is reporting on a new security bill coming up right before the election in November that is geared towards increasing security in the U.S. "One section anticipates storing the "lifetime travel history of each foreign national or United States citizen" into a database for the convenience of government officials." Senator McCain and HLS secretary Tom Ridge are mentioned specifically in the article: "McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs—with biometric identifiers—that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints." Reminds me not-so-vaguely of checkpoints in Soviet Russia where you needed papers to pass.
That last little editorial comparison to Soviet Russia summarizes the concern, or maybe paranoia.
The question is what "inalienable right" do Americans have to privacy? And by 'privacy' I mean the right to keep knowledge about them from being collected. It sounds like there's been some ongoing issue about people not wanting a "Federal ID" care to the point that some Democrats have been screaming against the idea of the US Federal Government even setting some standards for State Drivers Licenses.
I've heard this issue come up in so many places, many where I personally don't see there being a Big Deal. (Don't infer that I don't think others have a right to consider it a big deal.) Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:
1. Intel CPU serial numbers. I forget how many years ago, Intel was planning on creating a serial number for each new Pentium CPU. In my mind that sounded wonderful because it would create a nice, ubiquitous, standardized way to track hardware. In a former job I was trying to track and inventory hardware for a certain Fortune 500 company. The best sort of "unique identifier" could come up with was the MAC address on the Ethernet card. Of course, if someone swapped in a new networking card (or God Forbid) had two cards, it messed things up.
2. Being Profiled via Cookies! Internet advertisers would love to gain as much information about web users as possible, for obvious reasons. We've got very prominent "controls" on web browsers today so you can be very specific about what sort of Cookies your browser will accept. Generally, the Conventional Wisdom seems to be that it's bad for an advertiser to know anything about me.
Here I really disagree. I am SO SICK AND TIRED of being swamped by ads for things from Cars (especially SUVs) to Feminine Products to Titty Magazines (I'm gay, I don't care! Figure it out!) to Microsoft Windows stuff. I'd love it if the people who made products I might actually want to buy could get their ads to me and the others could go away. I think the world would be a better place if we all could get profiled more. Although I guess if you're into "child porn" that might be dangerous information.
3. Traffic control equipment. I think there are communities that have banned the automated devices that take pictures of cars that are speeding and mail the offenders their tickets. Dude! If you're breaking the law, why should it be illegal for the government to catch you in "certain ways". Hey, I just got a speeding ticket (first one of my life) a couple months ago. I deserved it. I paid it. End of story.
But now there come the issues where I guess some caution needs to be taken. Looking at the idea of the government knowing where I travel. Actually, first of all, the information is out there (FAA records, reservations, etc.) to some degree for an intrepid FBI to collect, and who says they aren't already.
I think the concern isn't that the government is abusing the data today, but if a golden age of McCarthyism were reborn, such information could be used to destroy people. Who knows if Vermont might be considered as politically dangerous to visit as Cuba is today? (Who knows about those Howard Dean freaks!) The degree by which McCarthy used circumstantial evidence to destroy lives maybe merits severe paranoia.
The other concern I have is with medical information, simply because we live in a society where this artificial monopoly called American Health Care can destroy a person by denying access to Insurance. I remember when you didn't dare get an AIDS test unless it was anonymous because even testing for AIDS (not actually having it) might place you in a high-risk zone where insurers might just decide to deny you insurance. (Of course that was stupid because people testing themselves exhibit healthier and safer behaviors than people who live in denial.)
To take it to extremes, people warn that if companies were allowed to test DNA we could have health care denied to people with heightened genetic risks. In some ways I would consider defending the "free market" nature of a system, but let's face it, American Health Care is a warped system by which everyone is forced to participate in a heavily controlled system that is far removed from anything resembling "free market". And again, due to regulations and other artificial controls, you can't pay for many health care treatments without insurance because they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So where does that leave us? I guess there are still some fundamental questions.
I still think that people tend to get worked up over small things. In fact, I would probably side with the Government much more if it weren't for the last four years' constant abuses by the Bush Administration, the Patriot Act, the knee-jerk tendency for the Administration to cite "national security" to cover up public information, erase criticism and nettlesome facts like EPA records, etc. Actually, I only have a vague memory of 18-24 months ago when it felt like the forces of McCarthy or Hilter were once again possible.
Should we allow the government to keep detailed travel records in order to aid the "fight against terrorism?" Damn, that's a hard one. If Uncle Sam had demonstrated a bit more decency and trustworthiness (again, suppressing embarrassing EPA records, Abu Graib, Guantanemo Bay, etc.) I would have said yes. But right now I find it really hard to justify.
Posted by Murray Todd Williams at October 26, 2004 09:09 AM