A policeman doesn’t need a warrant, and shouldn’t need a warrant, to look at your house. But there is more to it.
I have noted before that many contemporary Americans are demanding privacy when what they really want is anonymity. But these are not the same thing at all. If I am walking down a city street with thousands of others, I have anonymity. I don’t have privacy. Anybody who wants to can look at me — the next guy who passes by, the cop on the corner, or the surveillance camera outside the jewelry store. And the cop has every right to follow me if he saw that I have that look on my face.
But what the digital revolution has done is create a need for some radical extensions and applications of our definitions of “inside” and “outside,” not to mention “public” and “private.” Just as I don’t mind a cop seeing the outside of my house, I don’t mind him seeing the outside of my phone. But when is he “inside”? When does he need a warrant? When does he need to show a judge probable cause? If the answer is “we don’t really do that anymore,” the follow-up retort should be “because we are now slaves.”
But in order to have due process in this, we have to define the border between public and private. This is not a trifle — our future liberty depends upon it. How we define those lines, and how we enforce them, must not be left up to secret and unaccountable courts. This is because any state that can catch terrorists all in secret can create terrorists all in secret.
This is what it looks like when there has been a breakdown of trust. There may be certain things that the magistrate could arguably have every legal right to do, but which draw suspicion (rightly) nonetheless. For example, police have the right to stake out a house without a warrant, so how could this ever cause suspicion? But what if they are doing so in order that they might know when the owner is away so that they can go in there and plant some evidence? That would be an abuse of their prerogative, and if we know the nature of man, we need to have some protections around that prerogative, to the extent that we still allow it.
So the problem is not the possession of the metadata itself, which is kind of out there, but whether or not it puts unaccountable authorities in possession of an ability to get into your cyber house without anybody ever knowing that they did so. If the cops are staking out your house from across the street, there is the possibility you might see them. Who doesn’t think that these people have the capacity to plant child porn on your computer so that they can have something to haul you away for?
And we live in a time when we have every reason to believe that if such security ginks abused their position in this sort of way and were caught, the political uproar that followed would have the same trajectory and outline as the IRS scandal has had. This means that we ought not to do it.
The defenders of metadata collection say that it is like looking at you walk down the street. If you didn’t want to be seen you shouldn’t have taken that stroll. If you didn’t want people to know that you had made a call, you shouldn’t have made it. Up to a point, they have a point.
But if they are watching, and no one knows they are watching, and they are accountable to no one for their watching, the first conclusion I come to is that somebody ought to be watching them.
Two things. First, part of the problem is that modern technology allows the police to do surveillance in a way that they didn’t used to be able to, so gathering intimate details of your life is a whole lot easier than it was. The law simply hasn’t caught up to technology. Second, believe it or not, if you go back and look at the state of the law in 1950 and before, the courts have actually given people far more privacy than they used to have. At one time, the Fourth Amendment wasn’t considered a constraint on the states at… Read more »
“The defenders of metadata collection say that it is like looking at you walk down the street. If you didn’t want to be seen you shouldn’t have taken that stroll. If you didn’t want people to know that you had made a call, you shouldn’t have made it. Up to a point, they have a point.” Well not much of one. Surely there are circumstances where I have every right to make that call with legitimate reasons for not wanting everyone to be in on it. Remember party lines? It was pretty well known that some neighbors were going to… Read more »
For that matter I think I do have every right to object to people looking at me as I walk down the public street, if the looking consists of singling me out for deliberate and persistent staring. Was my thought as well, especially if we’re talking about following. Deliberately following someone is creepy, to say the least, even if done by the police without probable cause (like they suspect you of committing a specific crime, not that you look shifty). If you didn’t want people to know that you had made a call, you shouldn’t have made it. I think… Read more »
Paragraph 3 – I think you meant “probable cause” not “probably cause.” Unless I am missing a word play or joke.
“catch terrorists” to “CAN catch terrorists,” para 4–fix that delete this.
Yeah, our friends who stuxnetted Iran and punished a California Jew for Benghazi won’t do us any harm.
Pastor Wilson, I am as much concerned about this as you are. I like privacy, and feel violated if I think someone is watching me. I want to know why and for them to stop. My question, though, is how this interacts with Scripture. Sure liberty is a God-given right, but how is that liberty defined in Scripture. It seems to me that there is a fairly big space for disagreement within the church. In fact, one person I know who is a pastor teaches that our submission to the governmental authority is a commandment and whether they are a… Read more »
Andrew, unless you mean someone else, the guy they threw in prison for the video was a Coptic Christian, not a Jew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula He also had committed crimes. The timing of his arrest is very suspicious, though. They also just indicted Dinesh D’souza which seems a little coincidental given his documentary. I am not a conspiracy theorist but this seems quite questionable.
Related but as an aside, it is important to understand that “Constitutional rights” are not granted by the document, they are enumerated by it. Absent the document, the rights still exist. One of the anti-enumeration arguments was that citizens would eventually develop an understanding that the only rights possessed were those enumerated. To a certain extent, the antis were prescient.
BJ — That one troubles me as well. Here is my reasoning on it, but I am not a moral philospher — 1. What the Holy Spirit teaches/prompts/says always rules–even if I am the only person on the planet doing a thing. — 2. We live in a Constitutional Republic. When the government (as it has) ditches that, we are under no obligation to obey them for it is they who are in breach of our form of government (I am talking to you John Roberts) — 3. Post-Millenialism: I have not decided… Read more »
Who doesn’t think that these people have the capacity to plant child porn on your computer so that they can have something to haul you away for?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That was done in the first X Files Movie
I do have every right to object to people looking at me as I walk down the public street, if the looking consists of singling me out for deliberate and persistent staring. Of course you can object. The question is whether they are doing anything wrong (morally or legally). The answer is, in most cases, no. It may be morally wrong if they are fantasizing about you in a sinful way, but it isn’t legally wrong. You are confusing what makes you comfortable or uncomfortable with what is right or wrong. You are also confusing your right to object with… Read more »
If I remember correctly, the Constitution of the U.S. declares our rights to have been endowed to us by our Creator, not the government. The job of the government is to protect and defend those rights and not to inhibit them. Our job is to vote for folks to represent us who will do just that. It is also our job to protest and seek change when the folks we elected are derelict in their duty. This has nothing to do with or primary loyalty being to our Creator and not our nation or political system. Why do so many… Read more »
@LT – No, I’m not confusing anything. To this point, where did I address legality at all? You’re correct that something may be morally wrong without being legally wrong, but mostly incorrect about the rest. But then, you are right to note “in most cases”, for example, for those of you who are male at least, try staring fixedly at the lady sipping her latte and see if it doesn’t become a problem for you. It might not, but it might very well. In any case, if the thing is not in any way wrong then it is arguable if I, or let’s say… Read more »
@melody: It’s the Declaration of Independence that invokes the Creator, not the Constitution. The DoI is not part of our official jurisprudence – but it poses a useful question to ask your politicians.
Mark, you are correct about the Declaration being the source of the statement, however, without the Declaration, the ‘rights’ enumerated in the Constitution have no source or meaning. The current denial of the Judeo Christian God in our society today is the reason we are having such a difficult time hanging on to our liberty and people believe that ‘rights’ are bestowed by government.
I would argue that the even though the “DoI is not part of our official jurisprudence”, it is instructive for establishing legislative intent as well as the stare decisis that flows from cases where that intent is used for the decision. Without the DoI, there is no body or corpus to speak of regarding what “he” intends to say. (A speaker precedes speech.) The people who formed the corporate body called themselves “the United states of America” when they authored the Articles of Confederation, which document was then replaced by the Constitution. With the DoI, the group of people (as… Read more »
RFB, that was a good explanation.
Thank you sir. As I have mentioned in the past, I have nothing that I have not received. Whenever I am on this site, I feel like a little kid (sexagenarian that I am) jumping up and down trying to see over the fence where the big kids are standing and conversing. Most days I feel like I need stilts or a trampoline.
@JohnM >>>If the thing is not wrong then we are mistaken to object. <<< Here again you are confusing categories, namely, having a right vs. being right. You have every right to object to whatever you want. But that does not make you right in your objection. To put it differently, you can have a right to object, but be wrong in the matter to which you are objecting. To use an illustration, a person may object to laws against abortion. They have every right to object. However, their objection is wrong. >>>Can one rightfully (the law notwithstanding) stare away without regard to another’s… Read more »
LT – Saying “If the thing is not wrong then we are mistaken to object.” isn’t much different from “You have every right to object to whatever you want. But that does not make you right in your objection.” You’re only making the point I was making, but in other words. Not being “right in your objection” and being “mistaken to object” are pretty much the same thing. Except I would deny that you do have every right to object when your objection is substantially invalid. You might have the right in the sense of legal right and the practical opportunity, but if you’re wrong… Read more »
When was the last time you ever heard of a SCOTUS case outing the DoI? They don’t. It is not a legal document as far as legal decisions. Period
Robert, During submission of briefs to the SCOTUS, multiple various sources corroborating legislative intent are utilized. Just as a local example, (local because the historian who provided this information lives in Idaho) in both Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago, both 2A cases, reams of documentation regarding firearm history preceding the Constitution was presented to the court, illustrating the commonality of thought regarding firearm ownership and use. This documentation was critical for the SCOTUS finding the 2A as a personal right. In this same sense, the DoI is illustrative and informative as a basis for legislative intent,… Read more »
Tha will give me something to read.
I don’t know if most people really understand what’s going on with our current surveillance state. There’s a lot of misinformation out there. Here is a good interview with Edward Snowden where he discusses what the NSA can actually do.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151