Spy on me, I've got nothing to hide.

Many of us have heard that invitation countless times since the exposure of the president's illegal NSA wiretaps - on radio talk shows and TV programs, in newspapers and other blogs, on the street and around the water cooler. Today, half of our fellow citizens say giving up their privacy is a price they're willing to pay, in order to give the administration the tools it needs to protect us from that scary "them."

As more than a few diarists here and columnists elsewhere have noted, the nation managed to respect privacy rights when things were a heck of a lot scarier than today - like during WWII or the Cold War, when thousands of missiles were aimed at our duck-and-cover asses. (Historically, when we did step over the line, as in the Sedition Act, Internment camps, or McCarthy, it turned out to be wrong. Duh, a clue perhaps?) Of course, Bushie's heh-heh excuse that implementing this unauthorized snooping prior to 9/11 might have tipped us off in time to stop the WTC attacks has pretty much been put to bed. Even so, we continue to hear, "Go ahead, do your spy thing, I don't have anything to hide." Bullshit, here's why.

First, most of us do have something to hide. I'm not talking about a cell phone record to your favorite Al-Qaeda operative, but face it: have you ever run a red light, cheated on your spouse, exaggerated on a tax return, drove home drunk, smoked a joint, shoplifted a pack of gum, lied to a superior, or broke some law, no matter how ticky-tacky? If you haven't, you're a better man than I, Gunga Din. I just hate that "I have nothing to hide" shit, because if you dig deep enough, most of us have a few skeletons hanging in the closet. We're not bad people, we're human, we make mistakes, we do stupid stuff - and that's life. Unfortunately, a lot of people - doing the same crap you did - got caught, and their lives are fucked, forever. I live a comfortable life, but I know if things had played out differently - just a split second this way or that - when I was younger, I could be that homeless person walking on my street.

Beyond that, sanctioning the government to spy on you is the first step toward fascism and totalitarianism. I was watching a History Channel show about Stalin last night and I thought, "How the hell did these people allow this to happen?" With a Stalin or a Hitler it happens gradually. You surrender a few mundane rights in the name of patriotism or security or just "going along" - no big deal. Eventually, however, the leaders change the playing field; what is "wrong" and therefore punishable begins to shift. You thought you had "nothing to hide," but now being Jewish, homosexual, Estonian, left-handed, or critical (i.e., a blog poster or a T-shirt wearer at the SOTU) is a crime. And now you, who believed yourself honest and law-abiding with "nothing to hide," find yourself in Siberia, or a concentration camp, or a ditch. When I hear, "I've got nothing to hide," I want to scream: "Do you think most of the prisoners in Auschwitz were criminals with something to hide?"

I used to sit in my father's lap and watch the McCarthy hearings on a tiny black-and-white television (the first on our block), not really knowing why dad, a blue-collar union guy, was so worked up about the senator from Wisconsin. Years later I understood his anxiety and I wondered, "How did they let that guy happen?"

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

 

When you hear that "I've got nothing to hide" crap, call them on it. This shit today makes my sphincter shrivel.

•  I agree.

  If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be monitored or stopped and searched.

  by thoughtseries on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:33:43 AM PDT

•  Spy

  Sometimes they're so interested in "hidden messages or codes" they totally overlook the obvious.
  Just be careful when you order a pizza taxi that the CIA don't kick in your door to prevent you from farting at the next Church gathering...dirty bomb and all that !

  by madbernie on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:39:29 AM PDT

•  osama osama osama osama

  suicide bomber
  jihad
  muslim
  muhammed
  mohammed
  mohammad
  muhammad
  koran
  quran
  zaqarwi
  zaharwi
  bush
  bin laden
  bombing plans
  bush bin laden family business partners
  nsa
  bush is a moronic dipshit.

  expect a visit anyday now.

  by tlh lib on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 03:21:42 AM PDT

  •  Centrifuge

    Permanganate, Tegucigalpa, Karachi, encryption, spore.

     Magazine, ballistics, isotope.

     Methamphetamine.

    by ben masel on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 03:45:31 AM PDT

•  tell it to the naked people

  who have to be fingerprinted:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Miss Devore on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 03:48:13 AM PDT

•  I have nothing to hide

  Is a 100% false statement under any circumstance.

  You can always find someone who will find at least one of your opinions, religion, politics, color, lifestyle, level of wealth, how many guns you own, what pets you have -of interest in that they may have something against it.

  If they have power then they can decide to abuse it to victimize you.  Its not about hiding per se, its about (wait for iiiiit) - PRIVACY.

  I recently convinced someone who said that to me out of that stance.  It can be done.  I just don't know why they get there in the first place.  Its like they take on what the echo machine gives them and they convince themselves of it.

  A good starter with any conservative is "Why did you always object to gun registration in the past"  ...and go from there.

  by TalkieToaster on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:06:23 AM PDT

•  Senator Frank Church

  "that [surveillance] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology ...
  "I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [NSA] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
  -- Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho)quoted in James Bamford "The Puzzle Palace"

  Guess what year that quote was made...

  1975

  You think the technology has gotten better since then?

  Think about it, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you. If the government and corporate databases are ever combined (who knows, maybe they already are) you will have no privacy left whatsoever. Every time you use your ATM card, log on to the internet, make a credit card purchase, talk on the phone, use an electronic toll-booth, file a tax return, renew your drivers license, register to vote, buy a car, get a mortgage, hook up your utilities, get a speeding ticket, etc, etc, etc.

  Unfortunately, this is probably the inevitable future. Short of "unplugging from the grid, man" there isn't much that we can do. The only way to combat this is through responsible government regulation and laws on data collection and use. And maybe a constitutional amendment that clearly defines a right to privacy. I have some hope, the public seems to be concerned about the whole "identity theft" issue, so as they become more aware of just how much data is being collected, they may demand that Congress do something about it.

  And by the way, just in case you think this is tinfoil hat stuff, this is already happening. Look into Echelon, Total Information Awareness, Choicepoint, Acxiom, Seisint, to name but a few.

  I would also recommend Robert O'Harrow's book "No Place to Hide." He is a Washington Post reporter, and his book will throw a little scare into you regarding information that is already being collected. Not for the faint of heart.

   

  by bluerevolt on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:28:12 AM PDT

  •  NSA already outsourcing data-mining:

    "Companies like ChoicePoint, Acxiom, Seisint, and Lexis-Nexis working closely with the FBI, NSA, CIA and other national security and law enforcement agencies."Link
    More here: No Place To Hide.
    

    by Halcyon on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:09:52 AM PDT

  •  A constitutional amendment won't help.

    If your government won't abide by the constitutional rights you already have, what makes you think adding another amendment to be ignored would do any good?

    Not that a privacy amendment wouldn't be a good idea, but you also need to come up with some way of enforcing compliance upon the government. Since it is the government that is itself supposed to be the agency that enforces your society's laws... you have a problem.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? That is: who can guard against the guardians?

    by Canadian Reader on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:09:01 AM PDT

•  I believe you

  But my family and I are not gonna die in any ditch.

  Thanks to the examples and sacrifices of our forebears, we'll die fighting, up on the high ground.

  If those fucking assholes want us, they'll have to come and get us.

  by hrh on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:34:44 AM PDT

•  "Something to hide" misses the point

  "Something to hide" misses the point of privacy.  The advantage of privacy is that it promotes a lateral movement of ideas.  And a lateral movment of ideas permits creativity, innovation, and progress. The guy next door with the crazy inventions or revolutionary ideas will most certainly be percieved by his neighbors as "conspicuous". But "something to hide" is entirely interpretive in most cases.  "Something to hide" is not the point, allowing that little bit of mischief next door is merely the collateral damage that a healthy society is willing to absorb in order to protect those individuals who infuse life and spirit into the system, by thinking laterally without unnecessary persicution and limitation.  

  FEARSOME

  by TheFearsome on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:45:43 AM PDT

•  There's no such thing as privacy

  anymore.

  Your grocery purchases are recorded.  Every check or every electronic transfer of funds is recorded.  When you use your phone a permanent record is established.  Every email, every website you visit, everything you buy on line, every contribution to a political or charitable organiation is recorded. When you visit your doctor, your diagnosis, treatment and prognosis are recorded.  If you have a cable hook-up, every program you watch is recorded.

  I don't have anything to hide is exactly correct, because there is nothing left to hide.

  by nupstateny on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:53:06 AM PDT

•  When you ain't got nuthin'...

  You got nuthin' to hide.

  One of my archetypes, H.L. Mencken, observed in an essay on the criminal justice system that no one can be truly guiltless in modern society. The very act of living necessitates countless small, and occasional large, violations of law.

  Tossing a battery in the trash or disposing of motor oil "in the back 40" is a hazmat crime. Sharing a spouse's prescription meds is a crime. And most Americans by any measure seek some form of prohibited chemical relief from existential angst, which they've done from Colonial times.

  And Mencken came to the same conclusion that you do, Mother Mags: A great number of those who are incarcerated were simply unlucky enough to be caught. Now, in this age that I think of as the Great Crackdown, we have Draconian "mandatory minimum sentencing" laws that curtail the justice system's ability to discriminate between crime and poor decisions.

  As a criminal justice professor I had once put it: "Whatever you do, don't get caught up in the machine, because once you're in, it's almost impossible to escape." Now, it's easy enough to imagine oneself as a mid-level bureaucrat charged with some aspect of public safety, and it's quite understandable that if you were in that position, you'd find your job a great deal easier if you could have biometric data on everyone, know where every citizen was at any given moment, and have proof of every citizen's identity and business.

  The government doesn't want to have a sense of the population out there being some sort of amorphous, generalized mass of static and only react to problems after they occur. No, it would benefit the authorities to have a clear, accurate picture of the population and be able to spot - and predict! - misbehavior before it occurs by noticing certain identifiable patterns.

  One thing that futurists and trendspotters have been saying for years is that privacy is becoming very expensive and will soon be available only to the privileged few. The mass of humanity will indeed be indexed, databased, biometrically tracked and chip-implanted. Ultimately, GPS systems will track each citizen's movements and record and analyze them against past recorded movements.

  You already see this today, in a sense, as many people have found their credit cards frozen as a result of unusual behavior. Apparently, using a card overseas without notifying your credit card company in advance of your plans will almost certainly trigger a freeze, as will filling up two cars with gas and buying a pair of tennis shoes.

  Most disturbingly, however, is the sense I'm getting that the terms "privacy" and "civil rights" are being framed as far-left issues that the average, everyday American should have no business even considering. As a response, in addition to political activism, I propose two other tools we can employ to deal with these unpleasant trends:

  1. Use art to subvert. Freeway blogging is a superb idea. I've printed up lots of "Impeach." stickers and placing them is an art in itself. But also stickers with art messages like "Think" and "Yes" and "Quick". Non-sanctioned displays of media in unexpected places can cut through the fog.

  2. Be vocal in your assertion that "it's none of their business" in website comments, letters to the editor, calls to radio programs, however you reach out to your community. Work to keep "privacy" a mainstream value and don't let them marginalize it.

  by The Raven on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:22:47 AM PDT

•  As for the FISA issue...

  The President does have the authority to monitor suspected foreign enemies outside the US without a warrant. Supporters of the warrentless wiretapping go on to say that they don't see why this authority should disappear just because the other end of the communication involves someone in the US.

  Well I can tell you why it disappears. The answer is right in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

  Have a look yourself:

  
     (a) Presidential authorization

      (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if--

      (A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--

      (i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title);

      (ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person
  

  So as you see, that is why the President loses his authority to wiretap without a court order when it involves American citizens. It's right there in FISA law.

  Now the only other arugment would be that FISA is Unconstitutional. And if you want to go that route, be my guest, because guess where this debate will go to?

  The 4th Amendment. And trust me, there is no way in hell you will win that debate.

  by FtheNaysayers on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:42:44 AM PDT

•  my best friends

  husband has been currently deployed in iraq and was coming home for leave to finalize adoption on thier daughter.when he talked to her last not being able to say much he tried to slip his time of arrival by in french (very fast mid sentence)long story short he did not arrive(as of yet)not unusual considering how these flights are arranged.(hit & miss sometimes it takes several weeks catching flights here & there before you finally make it home)they both feel as we do about the entire administration and the war,so we are talking and she says "do you think i said something that was overheard and his leave has been cancelled as punishment?"she is very worried and has lost sleep over this.she is worried something may happen to him before thier daughter is legally adopted and her 2 boys will loose both their father and sister.how dare our gov't add paranoia to an already stressful situation.sorry just had to rant.

  by onzaga on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:50:49 AM PDT

•  Call them on it?

  That includes an assumption that "they" can think.

  You make a persuasive case, but you're talking with intelligent people who, on top of being able to think in the abstract, actually care.

  My sister is one of the "I've got nothing to hide" people who gladly trades her privacy to anyone interested, be that the grocery store or the government, in the belief that no one would ever bother 'little old her.'  

  While my sister does support her local veteran's home (her husband works there), the Moose Womens Auxilary, and occasional charitable projects her friends are involved in, she has no sense of wider obligation to anyone she does not personally know. Add the fact that her eyes glaze over when history is the subject (puleeze! She's searching Ebay for Lenox dishes) and you have what I see as the 'average' American.  Generous?  Yes.  Militantly pro 'the government will protect me'?  Yes.  Awake?  No.

  by jakbeau on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:06:25 AM PDT

  •  Can't disagree there.

    As Jefferson said, democracy demands an educated citizenry, which is why BushCo wants to keep us dumb and happy.  

    by Mother Mags on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:28:35 AM PDT