Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This will make you feel better about your government:
A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
And war is peace. And black is white. And it gets worse:
Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio, Texas, that he finds it odd that some would be concerned that the government may be listening in when people are "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an [Internet service provider] who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data."
This is an absolutely ridiculous argument. I don't want my ISP to track or maintain that data either. But it's the government that is demanding that they do so to help in criminal and terrorism investigations; they aren't doing that on their own. No, the drive to gather more and more information on what Americans do is coming primarily from the government, not from private businesses.
Millions of people in this country -- particularly young people -- already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers."Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
Is Kerr really this clueless? Can he really not see the distinction here? There is no violation of our privacy in any of these things. We can decide what information we want to reveal on MySpace or Facebook. And where in the world did he get the idea that such sites reveal credit card numbers to anyone? If they did, no one would use them.
The fact that people can reveal limited data about themselves voluntarily is hardly a justification for allowing the government to gather any data they want on us without our knowledge or consent. Any suggestion to the contrary is either rank idiocy or a baldfaced lie. It really is that simple.
Oh, here's my favorite part:
He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
Gosh, that makes me feel better, Mr. Kerr. And that might actually matter if you didn't work for an administration that also argues that no American citizen has any right to challenge the gathering of information for anything they say is part of a terrorism investigation AND argues that no court has such jurisdiction to hear such a case because of the state secrets privilege AND operates under a law that throws anyone who informs someone that their information has been gathered as part of an investigation in prison AND argues that no American citizen even has a right to know that they've been the target of such a search.
This is stunning in its sheer mendacity - "Don't worry, Mr. Citizen, if the government misuses your private information there are stiff penalties for that. What's that? You'd like to know if they've gathered such information on you or used it for anything? We won't tell you that. And if you file a suit to find out, we'll claim that you don't have standing. And even if you do prove standing, we'll then claim the state secrets privilege and demand that the court dismiss the case, which they will almost surely do. But don't worry, the law says we can't misuse it."
Let's be clear about this: our government already has a history of using illegally gathered information to blackmail civil rights leaders and organizations to shut them up. Now they want us to voluntarily give them the authority to gather any information they want, to literally track our every move, phone call, email and conversation, on the promise that they won't do anything bad with it? The phrase "you gotta be fucking kidding me" comes to mind.
Comments
Ed - You've got an extra "H" in your url link
Posted by: Taz | November 12, 2007 9:30 AM
What's particularly disturbing is that once such programs are in place, they tend to stay in place despite turnover in the presidency. While a Democrat, say, may gain political points, and possibly election, by railing against such programs, once in office they are more aware of their responsiblity to protect Americans, and the political effort it would take to undo the programs is unlikely to seem worthwhile to them.
My guess is that surveillance of the public is here to stay. We live in a defacto police state.
In an earlier message, I quoted Pat Robertson's suggestion for nuking the state department. I couldn't remember who it was, so I googled "said, bomb, state department," and as I was doing it the thought went through my mind that this search phrase was likely to be noticed by the government's electronic intelligence gathering program. How pathetic that our government so drastically falls below our constitutional ideals that such thoughts even occur to us.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 12, 2007 9:50 AM
I'm totally with you Ed, fed up having my information tapped by ISPs and a heap of other online organizations. I have now decided that I need to take control of what information about me is available online
As you say Facebook and Myspace offer me that. But going further, I have decided to create the most up to date and useful source information about me and have posted it here on my own blog where I am also working in mechanisms to gain better control of who can see it and what they can do with it.
Posted by: Gammydodger | November 12, 2007 10:11 AM
Ed, you didn't mention that if a government official is convicted of misusing personal information, Bush will just pardon him. I'm not completely opposed to the idea of giving up some degree of privacy for more safety, but how can anybody take the administration seriously when they say, "No really, you can trust us this time."?
Posted by: Brandon | November 12, 2007 10:37 AM
With the advanced security processes known to be operative these days, you can rest assured that all of your personal information, and that of hundreds of thousands of people somehow associated with you (via shared employers, schools, library books etc) will all be downloaded into a laptop which will be left in an unlocked car outside a whorehouse.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 12, 2007 11:18 AM
He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
Because this administration is so good at following the law when it comes to private information. Look at how feverishly they went after the Valarie Plame leak. Head rolled in that one!
/sarcasm off
I think that what this administration has taught us is that if they mis-use information to further their cause, then it is ok.
Posted by: mess | November 12, 2007 11:20 AM
The first link provided has an extra "h" at the beginning:
hhttp://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/11/terrorist.surveillance.ap/index.html
^_omit this
Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 12, 2007 11:26 AM
So yeah, those young folks won't mind government surveillance.
Posted by: Sastra | November 12, 2007 11:37 AM
I like how Mr. Kerr uses race-baiting instead of logic to answer a question about privacy.
Classy.
Posted by: RickD | November 12, 2007 11:43 AM
The truly scary thing is that Bush started tapping our phone lines *before* 9/11, not because of it.
But the Democratic leadership tells me impeachment is off the table, so I don't worry about it.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 12, 2007 1:09 PM
Gingerbaker: "The truly scary thing is that Bush started tapping our phone lines *before* 9/11, not because of it."
Do you have a source for that? I would love to wave it in the faces of a couple people I know.
Posted by: jba | November 12, 2007 1:25 PM
I'm not completely opposed to the idea of giving up some degree of privacy for more safety...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Posted by: Tophe | November 12, 2007 2:50 PM
jba, try here.
Posted by: Skemono | November 12, 2007 2:57 PM
These "don't worry" messages from the government don't reassure me one bit. If the possibility of misuse is there (even if there are penalties against it) SOMEONE is going to misuse it.
If there are any lessons to be learned from history, that is one of them.
Posted by: Mobius | November 12, 2007 3:12 PM
jba, see also here.
Posted by: Tophe | November 12, 2007 5:33 PM
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Kerr. Purely because of technology, the nature of privacy is changing. It was not possible to collect and record the the data that we now collect in a simple credit card transaction as little as twenty years ago. As the economy moves away from cash transactions to electronic transactions, in order to participate in that economy it will be eventually required for individuals to reject anonymity as we knew it. We will all require a way to say "THIS IS ME," which will partly depend on a trail of electronic evidence tied cryptographically to specific individualized details like fingerprints, retina scans, DNA, etc. If you lose the trail you will lose the at least part of the evidence that you are who you say you are and you will lose at least part of your ability to participate in the economy. The data will be collected and mined, you see, because the market will demand it, and our notion of responsible authority will be one that resists the temptation to use data without our consent, rather than one that resists collecting the data.
My $0.02, anyway. Also, to establish my bonafides, I've voted Peace and Freedom party for the last 12 years.
The world is changing people. Drastically.
Posted by: bakum | November 12, 2007 8:44 PM
bakum-
Of course it's true that there is much more information available on electronic databases than ever before, but that is entirely beside the point. It does not follow that therefore all of that information should be available to the government automatically. It does not follow that because the phone companies have records of all your calls that the government should be given automatic access to those records. The standard has always been the one found in the 4th amendment - if you want those records, you have to subpoena them and that requires a showing of probable cause. The existence of those databases makes it more important, not less, that the government have to follow strict rules to gain access to them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 12, 2007 9:00 PM
Now, Mr. Kerr, lemme see if I have this right. I have a right to privacy. Up till now, I've been seeing to its integrity with no problem. But now, because bellicose bedouins followed through on threats that are decades old, I can no longer do so. Given that the all seeing eye of the gummint clearly understood and reacted to these threats when the were first made, I can only ask, "Why do you ask this sacrifice or me? Surely my yielding will not hold the bombers from the crowds. Why, then?"
Is it because when I care for the details of protecting my own privacy, you find yourself without a way to twist my arm and can't make me dance a jig when you snatch the strings? Or is it the deep malaise that your feel when I'm not gasping and freaking over a threat that has clearly existed for over a quarter century, thus casting your alarm in a dimming light? Either way you've missed the boat.
In the first case, one basis of this nation is the peoples' surfeit of interference "from above". In the second, your fear mongering is not only late, it is also shrill, affected and profitless. How can you protect my anonymity better than I? Indeed, if I left it up to you, my identity et cetera would be at your fingertips as well as mine (not to mention any gummint functionary who managed to get clearance to access my data. No telling how hard that would be, eh?). Tell, me again, how does this ensure my anonymity? How does it make me, and America, all comfy?
This nation is not made up of just voters and friendly districts. This nation is also contains a significant measure of people who take their constitutional rights seriously because they have taken the time to find out just what those rights are. Chief among these rights is security; in person, papers, property, coming and going and association, in personal conviction and expression both private and in public. In fact, the fundamental assumption of these freedoms is precisely what America is all about. How to answer the suggestions of one such as you has been dealt with by those more able than I. But, to summarize their sentiment, "Nuts to you".
I posted this at UTI. I will try to find a way to post it to Mr. Kerr as well.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 12, 2007 11:45 PM
No, the drive to gather more and more information on what Americans do is coming primarily from the government, not from private businesses.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Private interests have been collecting your data for years, and then selling it to "their partners". Much of the information the government has on you is purchased or bullied out of private interests who were collecting it anyway.
Don't fall into the trap of private = good, government = bad. In a *functional* government there are regulations and controls and laws, there is no such beast in the private interests' world.
Posted by: Graculus | November 13, 2007 8:06 AM
I'm in Singapore right now... and I didn't research the privacy laws yet here, but I think Mr. Orwell would really love this place.
I'd explain more, but I know I've got a security camera on my back and computer screen right now... and several warning signs are around here stating that violations will be recorded and "hand[ed] to the relevant authorities".
The sudden lurches of the mouse cursor makes me wonder if someone is remotely watching my screen right now as I type!
So please Ed... no links to porn today... lol... I don't wanna go to S'pore jail today... lol
Posted by: doctorgoo | November 13, 2007 9:33 AM