The Issue: U.S. official calls for "redefinition" of privacy
What we think: This sets a dangerous precedent
The next time you call the folks back home or close friends at another university, they may not be the only ones legally listening in - not if the principal deputy director of national intelligence, Donald Kerr, gets his way. A recent debate concerning whether or not to give telecommunication companies immunity on the issue of government eavesdropping along with Congress' effort to rehaul the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act spurred Kerr to claim that U.S. citizens must modify their definition of privacy. While the U.S. has long been heralded for its protection of anonymity - the authors of the Federalist Papers even published anonymously - Kerr argued that privacy should no longer mean anonymity, but rather that the government is obligated to preserve citizens' private communications through warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping.
Kerr argues that since millions of young people in our generation have already forfeited and willingly divulged vast amounts of personal information to the public through social networks such as Facebook, which boasts 43 million subscribers, this revamping of privacy isn't anything new, nor is it something that people should fear since they are already actively perpetuating this new definition.
Despite the prevalence of social networking sites in our generation, Kerr's argument is flawed. Our generation does not have a different notion of privacy, as Kerr suggests we do. Rather, people are simply embracing new communication and technologies to voluntary give out information about themselves. Facebook is this generation's version of salons and barber shops, where our forefathers privately exchanged information and valued anonymity as we do through these sites.
Kerr's most disturbing comment during the hearing came when he stated that the U.S. government is simply unable to protect Americans' anonymity. A dangerous precedent would be set if we accepted this statement and allowed the government to regulate our definition of privacy simply because of the growing complexity of modern technology and communication tools. Kerr is arguing that our generation should choose between modern communication tools and privacy - a choice that no American should have to make. Especially damaging to Kerr's argument are recently published statistics that reveal the ineffectiveness of wiretapping. Of the over 2,000 wiretaps issued in 2005, only 22 percent of the conversations were incriminating, which, at a cost of over $55,530 per wiretap, highlight's the impracticality of Kerr's new definition of privacy
The fact that the legislation to give telecommunication companies total immunity didn't pass is encouraging. Still, despite this recent legislation, don't expect the issue of privacy to dissipate anytime soon. The government is constantly taking new actions and implementing different strategies to fight terrorism - strategies that sometimes cross the line.
With Kerr's definition of privacy in mind, the FBI recently attempted to identify terrorists by tracking customer shopping habits, including the purchase of Falafel by Iranians in the San Francisco area. Not surprisingly, the falafel investigation did not lead to terrorists.
2008 Woodie Awards
