By James E. Miller: On August 6th, the small town of Deer Trail, Colorado is set to vote
on an ordinance that will permit the hunting of unmanned surveillance
drones. The author of the ordinance, Phillip Steel, claims the gesture
is “symbolic.” In an interview
with a local ABC News affiliate, Steel attested that he does “not
believe in the idea of a surveillance society.” The Florida Legislature
recently passed a law barring federal government drones from “gathering evidence or other information” on citizens of the state. A handful of other American states are pursuing measures to limit the spying operations of Uncle Sam’s unmanned aerial vehicles.
The pushback against Washington’s snoop activities is a
nice development. It’s unfortunate that these state laws and local
ordinances will not amount to anything significant. The federal
government is the divine master of what was once known as the individual
states. Federalism – the idea that sovereignty is shared between
hierarchical governing bodies under one umbrella of monopoly authority –
is a long-dead concept of American lore. The states have been
subservient to a national Leviathan since the War for Southern
Independence. If the Constitution was supposed to balance the powers
between state legislatures and Congress, it has been a miserable
failure. Like pigs at the trough, the “laboratories of democracy” lined
up to feed on an endless stream of Washington money that came with
strings implicitly attached.
A vast security state is coming, and it will not be limited
to the United States. The sock puppet governments around the globe will
follow in tandem. New surveillance technology lowers the barrier of
effort needed to soak the productive class of the surplus fruits of its
labor. From monitoring backyards to ensure taxes are being paid on swimming pools to spying on farmers
who violate agricultural regulations, states across the globe are
already using new spy tools to extort more loot from the greater public.
All the while, the political class gives an assurance that
the technological innovation will not be abused. Newspaper editors
parrot the message and paint any critic as a tinfoil hat loon who thinks
Big Brother sleeps under their bed. And then there are the television
intellectuals who take great joy in making flippant remarks about
conspiracy theorists. Each of these personalities pictures him or
herself as sitting a few ladder rungs above the horde of bumbling
mass-men.
One has to be either lying or painfully ignorant to believe
government will not abuse surveillance drones. State officials have
rarely failed to use their capacity to terrify the populace. Just
recently, journalist Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian revealed
that the National Security Agency sweeps up the internet activity of
all U.S. residents absent any warrants. Prior to the leak, those
politicians in charge of overseeing the government’s oversight
activities claimed the snooping was done in the public good and not as
widespread as suspected. The new details of the program contradict the
assurance, as the NSA’s spy activity is more intrusive – and prone to abuse – than originally thought.
A sterling record of misconduct is still not enough to
convince enlightened thinkers and academics of the state’s propensity to
terrorize. There are still a handful of civil liberty organizations calling attention
to the dangers of the widespread use of surveillance drones and data
gathering. But their beef is focused more on the right to privacy rather
than a usurpation of basic property rights.
But is there really a right to privacy? The question is riddled with nuances, and the subject has been the debate
of thinkers who truly value a free society. And if there exists no
metaphysical claim to solitude, is it truly a good to be pursued? In his
Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argued “there is no such thing as a
right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from
invasion.” It may be blunt and slightly abrasive, but it is difficult –
even insurmountable – to refute Rothbard’s assertion. To put a right to
privacy into action, one has to forcefully shut down cognizant behavior
on the part of surrounding individuals. This action must occur in public
or “unowned” spaces as private land could be altered to block prying
views. In practice, to achieve seclusion in a public setting would
interfere with the rights of others. In other words, it would constitute
a positive right – that which is in direct contention with the liberty
of self-ownership.
Michael Rozeff does not believe a pure property rights
approach is enough to highlight the importance of privacy. He is
correct, but a perspective on rights is not meant to identify what is
conducive for human flourishing. It is a governing doctrine based on
humanity’s unique attributes. The ability to own and trade property is
necessary for the good life, but they are not alone. There are other
needs including love, socialization, introspection, aesthetic
stimulation, seeking truth, and friendship. The capacity to exist as a
full-fledged human being starts with the ownership of self and extends
beyond.
I shudder at the idea of a society where the most intimate
moments of life are viewable to anyone whom I choose not to share with.
The psychological impact of constant monitoring can take a toll on a
man’s sense of self and well-being. Autonomy cannot be practiced in full
if there is another set of eyes on you at all times. As Rozeff writes,
“we need things to be essentially human without there necessarily being a
right to them.” No man can survive without sustenance but that does not
give him the right to raid the cupboards of his neighbors. Just the
same, the need for privacy does not justify the use of force for
acquisition.
We have entered in a new era where our most personal details are up
for grabs. Everyday, people share the intricacies of their life with a
closed network of friends. But an online fingerprint does not stay
static. It is bounced around to various parties who have an interest in
selling you a product. Advertisements are directed toward records of
interest. All of this online tracking, innocuous and lawful as it may
be, just does not sit well.
Like the public square, there is no reasonable expectation
of privacy on the internet. If people choose to browse the World Wide
Web, that is their business. This view does not legitimize the state’s
collecting and monitoring of private data however. It is unlikely –
though entirely possible – that internet providers had previously
inserted a disclaimer about government data tracking into the contracts
for clients. If that were so, companies such as Google and Yahoo would
not be petitioning
Washington to lift gag orders placed on disclosures for user data.
Taking account of the sole truth that the state is unfit to exist
morally or constructively, any action taken on the part of its lackeys
is driven by aggressive theft, and thus illegitimate.
The prospect of around-the-clock surveillance is a chilling
thought and one that should not be taken lightly. Unfortunately the
only means to achieve some semblance of privacy requires a luddite
approach to technology and a hermit’s approach to community. Otherwise,
you avail yourself to the terror of visibility in what should otherwise
be, in Thomas Paine’s words, the blessing of society.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment