Next time you walk through a bookstore, take a closer look at the nonfiction section - you may see a misplaced copy of a familiar book. Since 2005, sneaky activists have been re-shelving copies of George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 from the "fiction" section to the "political science" or "current affairs" aisles. One copy of the book was found in Downtown Crossing's Borders next to a book titled Inside the Mind of Bush, reports The Boston Globe.
Consider these lines from 1984: "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. … It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time … you had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
That sounds like the way I feel every time I log on to Facebook. Though perhaps the biggest privacy problem for Boston College students right now is adjusting the newsfeed settings on their Facebook profiles, privacy is an issue that should be kept on everybody's minds, especially as students consider candidates in the upcoming election.
Important events are brewing that may dramatically affect everyone in the country. Last month, for example, CNN reported that the FBI is expected to announce that it is in the process of awarding a $1 billion, 10-year contract to create a database of people's physical characteristics, including palm prints and iris scans. The reason for all this is to protect the country from criminals and terrorists - but to what extent will this technology pervade society?
"It's the beginning of a surveillance society, where you can be tracked anywhere, anytime and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated," said an ACLU spokesman.
A CNN article said that the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil rights advocacy organization, is filing a lawsuit that criticizes "lengthy questioning and intrusive searches" in airport security searches, which includes forced surrender of information on personal electronic equipment like laptops and Blackberrys.
"You forgo your right to privacy when you are seeking admission into the country," said a Department of Homeland Security spokesman.
"We don't allow the government to come into people's homes at will without any probable cause, without any basis for suspicion. … Why should we let them get into people's computers just because they happen to be traveling across the border?" a Georgetown Law professor argues.
The questions surrounding these issues are numerous and debatable, and call for a look at the Fourth Amendment - "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."
It seems to me that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are encouraging Americans to acquiesce to a slow dismantling of privacy rights that may ultimately provide the precedence and justification for even more Orwellian laws and regulations - and I haven't even mentioned the Patriot Act yet.
The Patriot Act, first enacted after the shock of Sept. 11, allowed federal officials to access your medical records and information about the books you buy or borrow and to break into your home and conduct secret searches. Although it was modified twice, "they haven't done away with some of the core provisions," said professor Dale Herbeck of the BC communication department.
"Historically they had to have some sort of credible evidence [to take action], but they've lowered the standards to make it easier.
"The further we get from Sept. 11," Herbeck said, "the more perspective we get." Citizens are realizing the injustices of certain security measures, he says, similar to reactions after the Japanese internment situation of WWII.
When we choose our presidential candidates, we must remember that Barack Obama voted for the latest reincarnation of Patriot Act (2006), Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (2006, 2001), and John McCain all three times (2006, 2005, 2001).
National security is, of course, incredibly important - but so are the basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. There is something eerie and disturbing about a government with the power to see our every act, search our every possession, and scrutinize our every step, and that was the government Orwell portrayed in his book. How many personal rights will we yield before "security" becomes "surveillance"? It's worth thinking about.
Arvin Temkar is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Be the first to comment on this article!