Polls are all over the place on Americans' views on the NSA program, depending on the precise wording of the question, but for the sake of argument, I'll grab the recent
CNN poll that claims roughly half of the population thinks it's okay for the feds to conduct surveillance and collect data without a warrant. Based on this, I assume most of us have friends, family members or co-workers who've uttered the words:
I have nothing to hide, so why should I care about NSA surveillance?
Here's a primer on why they should care.
It puts you at risk for identify theft ... and IT'S ILLEGAL
From all reports we've heard about the secretive NSA program, it's a vast vacuum operation that collects data, stores it and shares that information with other agencies, all without a warrant. Anything that's done with electronic transmission is trackable in practical terms - meaning online credit card purchases and bill paying, ATM transactions, paying for groceries with a debit/credit card. PINS, passwords, Social Security numbers, driver's license identifier information, bank account numbers, all are available ... all in the hands of federal agencies and their employees.
Even if the government has the noblest intention of protecting you from terrorists in mind, do Americans really trust that every employee in every agency that has access to this personal information will not sell it, abuse it or steal it? We could be talking dozens or hundreds or thousands of people. We don't know. We don't know who has access to this information and what they're doing with it now or what they will be doing with it in the future.
Think this is a loser approach to appealing to Americans? Think again. From an October 2005 CBS poll:
Nearly nine in ten Americans say they are concerned about identify theft, including more than half who are very concerned. Concern about the theft of personal numbers such as Social Security, phone card or bank account numbers has been high since March 1998.
When you've got 90 percent of Americans expressing concern about any issue, you've got potential for a major unifying message. Forget calling this an abridgement of civil liberties. Call it what it is: an invasion of privacy that puts your personal information in the hands of total strangers. Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help. Right.
It's ineffective ... and IT"S ILLEGAL
Common sense should tell you that looking for clues to potential criminal activity at the local dump is going to yield less pertinent information far less efficiently than searching the office of a reasonably targeted suspect. That's where a warrant comes in. Prove to a court that a specific person has a possible connection with terrorist activity, then go for it. Sifting through the electronic and telephonic detritus of the lives of thousands of Americans whom you don't have enough verifiable leads on to justify a warrant is a recipe for failure. Instead of looking at the warrant process as a hindrance - and it's really hard to look at it that way with the 72-hour warrantless grace period offered under FISA - Americans need to understand that the court process helps as a sifting mechanism; it narrows the haystack down when looking for the needle.
Yes, I repeat: IT'S ILLEGAL
Sadly, this is probably the least concern for Americans who've been scared out of their gourds by the president. The mindset of "protect me at all costs" - even if the cost is illegal - is going to be tough to alter. Some have offered the "will you be comfortable with Hillary having these powers?" argument. If that works with your acquaintances, go for it. I'll offer up another: If the president can suspend the Fourth Amendment, what's to prevent him from suspending the Second Amendment? Are you comfortable with the thought that if you ... say ... gripe about the president's handling of the budget deficit while you're in line at the post office, you could get a knock on your door a couple hours later from the feds asking you to turn over your guns?
Can't happen here? Maybe not. But do we really want to set a precedent that not just this executive, but any future executive we may elect, can decide on his or her own what portions of the law and the Constitution need to be followed?
Our founders had a great and wise distrust of government and its inherent tendency to overreach. Most Americans, when not being jerked around by terror alerts and propaganda, share that distrust. Perhaps the upcoming NSA hearings will give us an opportunity to have a national conversation in an official setting about the values and protections afforded us by the Bill of Rights. One step in a more rational direction seems to me to be framing this discussion around the identity theft issue - which obviously concerns many Americans - and the inefficiency/incompetence angle of this administration, reminding citizens that even with very specific warnings ahead of time, Bush failed them with Katrina. God only knows how clueless this administration could be when inundated with too much information, most of it useless.
And oh, yeah. By the way, it's illegal. And in 2002 the administration fought the chance to make it "easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard."
