The false argument against privacy

I keep reading letters (scroll to bottom of page in the link) to the editor in the O that support the NSA's warrantless spy operations with a stupid and dangerous argument.  The argument goes something like this:  Hey, credit card companies do it, phone companies do it, pharmaceutical companies do it... for cryin' out loud, everyone has information about all of us... you can purchase it, you can look it up on the Internet, it's all over the place.  So what's the big deal if the government collects all the same info on us?

I'm certainly not thrilled that all these corporations know that I watch The Office every Thursday night and that I grocery shop at Food Front and New Seasons Market, or that I make financial contributions to the Bus PAC, but do I want the government to know that?  Look, the government is not, I repeat NOT a corporation.  There seems to be some confusion between the two these days.  Corporations are NOT put in place by and for the people.  The government is.  The government's duty is to uphold the Constitution, which has a Bill of Rights.  In that Bill of Rights there is the Fourth Amendment, which advocates of presidential authoritarianism seem to think is dated, or perhaps "quaint."

I wonder if those who believe the false argument that government collection of personal info is no different than corporate collection of personl info, and therefore harmless to the state of our constitutional democracy, will feel the same way if H.C. becomes president with Democrats in control of Congress.  Hmmm... I wonder.

Comments

[ron ledbury]

The US Constitution and that of the State of Oregon both protect the right of association. What they do not provide is any "right" to limited liability. That is what state legislatures dish out as a special benefit.

One last hint of continued personal liability for owners of corporations was with banks. Yet that personal liability too is being whittled away.

Now if you were to liken private credit reporting entities to say the private files of a paramilitary organization in a Latin American country then I might bite into the argument.

Don't forget that one of the features of the US involvement in El Salvador was the offer of payment of money for snitches on this that and the other . . . whatever the data-miners wanted to know.

How about the old USSR where private talk versus public talk was like two different worlds . . . for fear of snitches, as there were so many?

I am not one to accord government, any government, with a presumption of benign public interest, as a justification for turning individual protections (and the bill of rights . . . against the government) upside down.

"Corporations are NOT put in place by and for the people."

It is just a modern form (not better, just more recent in time) to old mutual aid societies. Local government's too are often referred to as municipal corporations.

If you want a good twist then go read FRYE+v.+TENDERLOIN+HOUSING+CLINIC about public purpose and the corporate form of organization in the context of a legal aid group. It should cause your stomach to turn if you ascribe to corporations (for profit or otherwise or with or without limited liability) the label of evil because of their chosen form of organization. Just take away the privilege of limited liability from non-governmental organizations of all forms (including those that call themselves religious), so that one class of people (or an individual) can get a square deal against any other class of people.

Perhaps a modern take on spying is like that of stalking. Find the definition (not the name) and apply it's elements to the conduct of spies and data keepers . . . including harassment.

The authoritarians on the left and right have already won.

[Sid]

Authoritarianism is authoritarianism... what's the difference to the people if it's from the left or right?