The Surveillance State Threatens All of Us

Philip Giraldi
Campaign For Liberty
Thursday, July 16, 2009

When you hear the word “security” or “safety” watch out. They are the two buzz words that are most often used by the government, whether federal or local, to fearmonger. Fear can be used to drive bad policies that otherwise would be rejected. It has consequences, internationally, nationally, and locally. Around the world Americans fight wars because they are afraid that if they do not do so they will be attacked by terrorists. Nationally, the Department of Homeland Security grows and grows, compiling extensive data bases on citizens who have done no wrong. Locally, police forces grow larger and larger in spite of falling crime rates. What is certain about the consequence of fear is that those who sell it to increase government powers do so in the full knowledge that it will cost lots of taxpayer money and will also wind up infringing on civil liberties. Make no mistake, the post 9/11 United States is moving gradually towards becoming a police state-lite and no one seems to care very much. But don’t worry, it is all happening to make you more safe and secure.

The creep of government and the march of surveillance technology go hand in hand. In Maryland and other states, the push to use ostensibly innocuous technology to enable police to monitor the public has accelerated. There has been some debate in the Washington area about the increasing use of speed cameras, but those who are opposed are usually silenced by the “safety” argument. It is reported that Montgomery County in Maryland has deployed hundreds of cameras and is raking in $53,000 a day in fines. The cameras are sited on busy roads and record the license plates of vehicles going a pre-set speed over the posted limit. Many are located where the speed limit drops, making them electronic speed traps. The fine is mailed to the owner of the car automatically and there is no appeal and no way to determine if the camera was malfunctioning. If the fine is not paid, penalties are added on to it and the offending vehicle has its re-registration blocked.

Governments use “safer” to justify anything and have done so in the past to curtail constitutional rights through abominations like the Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act. Burgeoning technologies like speed cameras raise serious personal liberties issue that no one is choosing to address. Why should the government have the ability to monitor the movements of a vehicle belonging to a citizen under any circumstances? Does anyone know for sure that the speed cameras are not sending their information to some data base at the Department of Homeland Security? Maybe they already are. It is difficult to know as there is no real oversight to the process and it is easy to connect data bases. If the cameras are not being multi-tasked yet just wait until someone figures out what a wealth of information they might be collecting. And when they begin recording information on law abiding citizens the government will claim that it is for everyone’s safety and security.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Those who might argue that collecting traffic data electronically is not threatening might want to consider that information only has meaning when someone figures out how to use it. The employment of apparently innocuous data bases to police the public has been around for a while. Shortly after 9/11, CIA was sending officers all over the world, many traveling on authentic US passports issued in false names. An officer I know who was returning from Asia presented his passport to the immigration officer at Dulles Airport. The airport flipped through it, slid it through a scanner, punched a couple of numbers and then asked “What kind of car do you own?” All of the fake passports apparently had some linked data bases that were provided to make them appear more authentic, which is referred to as backstopping. In this case, the immigration officer was able to pull up additional information from state of Virginia records relating to the traveling officer who, unaware of the DMV link, was arrested, and spent a few uncomfortable hours in the slammer before being bailed by CIA security. That was in 2002. The all-information all-the-time security state has been much empowered and improved since then and it is to be presumed that there now exists an electronic data base on every citizen.

Local governments have an interest in developing ingenious ways to fine the citizenry to raise money but the more important issue is the government’s willingness and ability to electronically monitor people’s lives. The National Security Agency already has the technical capability to monitor all telephone calls taking place within the United States in real time. To judge how close we Americans are to complete surveillance it is helpful to look at the example of Europe, where state intrusion has been a fact of life for many years. The United Kingdom, which is now the most constantly and thoroughly technically surveilled country on earth, provides some hint of what the United States might become in a few years. The British government routinely monitors telephone calls and e-mail messages. Cameras provide continuous coverage of the centers of most cities and there is monitoring of all major roads and bridges by CCTV linked to monitors.

To cite only one example, back in March the British media was reporting the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence. Lawrence was working as a chef at a university in York when she disappeared. A BBC report included the following: “It was initially thought Miss Lawrence had disappeared after setting off on the three-mile walk from her home to work the following morning. But she does not appear on any CCTV footage from her normal route.”

On the basis of the CCTV, the police ruled out her having walked to work, which means that they were able to reconstruct a three mile route through the city with reasonable assurance that they had not missed Lawrence on the CCTV footage. That the police would be able to do that and no one bats an eyelash for privacy reasons is astonishing, a level of government surveillance that is several generations beyond speed cameras. It is reminiscent of Winston Smith in 1984 whose television was watching him while he was doing exercises in front of it. Maybe George Orwell knew what was coming.

And then there is the real ID. Janice Napolitano, Director of Homeland Security, has backed off from the real ID concept that would have united all relevant data bases on the federal, state, and local levels to create an identity card that would be required for all US citizens and resident aliens. Reportedly, a number of states balked at the expense of integrating their data bases, but there is a fundamental civil liberties issue that is much more important. A huge data base on all citizens incorporating detailed personal information is a formula for control by the state that essentially renders null and void the US constitution. Can Napolitano make a case that the creation of the real ID will end terrorist threats? Of course not. The sponsors of Real ID might be well intentioned and honorable, but they should understand that in the wrong hands electronic invasion of privacy can become another tool taking away individual rights and liberties and transferring control to the government. No one really knows whether a national ID it would really make anyone safer or more secure. Many European countries already have identity documents that are similar to the proposed real ID, yet they have suffered from terrorist attacks and continue to have thousands of illegal immigrants.

The creep towards the technological control of the entire US population continues. It is particularly dangerous because it is largely unregulated, free of any judicial process. There is no sign that the Obama Administration will do anything to stop the development of new technologies and policing imperatives because more government in everyone’s lives is really what the Democratic Party is all about. When government officials start talking about everyone’s safety the people should be aware that those promises are essentially empty and that exchanging liberty for the promise of security will eventually lead to the loss of both.

• 
• Social bookmarks
• 
• Email this article
• 
• Print this page

Comment Terms Of Use

14 Responses to “The Surveillance State Threatens All of Us”

1. truth911 Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 5:35 am

   the criminal cops here in our little town in ohio put in new traffic signal’s with things on top that look like cameras then the published it in the paper and said no no those aint cameras was what the public was told, flat out lies .

   

   el_capitano Reply:
   July 16th, 2009 at 8:02 am

   There are small devices on top of traffic signals around here which allow ambulances and fire trucks to change the light to green. It’s a type of strobe device. The vehicle emits a strobe pulse which changes the light so they don’t need to run any reds. This could be the device that was just installed in your town. Take a closer look, does it really look like a camera?

   

   used to be proud brit Reply:
   July 17th, 2009 at 2:09 am

   ITS A TRAFFIC FLOW CENSOR ,IT SELF MONITORING OF TRAFFIC FLOW
   THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE UK FOR YEARS

   THEY WONT CHANGE THE LIGHTS IF YOU FLASH AT THEM EITHER !

   el_capitano WRONG INFO M8 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMERGENCE VEHICLES

   IN CASE YOU DON’T BELIEVE
   http://www.howstuffworks.com/question234.htm

2. Probably Evil Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 6:27 am

   You’re an idiot. You start off talking about how “Fear can be used to drive bad policies that otherwise would be rejected. It has consequences, internationally, nationally, and locally” then spend a whole article trying to spread fear about CCTV. Do you not see the irony of that?

   How can you cite the Claudia Lawrence case of CCTV use saying it’s a bad thing? The police were able to work out that she disappeared before she would have walked to work – and for someone walking to work at 5:30am when there aren’t many people about, this was really useful. CCTV is still helping in this case identifying people who could have information. Ultimately, you don’t have anything to worry about if you haven’t done anything wrong in the first place.

   

   Lyn Pindling Reply:
   July 16th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

   John Charles de Menezes didn’t have anything to worry about then did he?

3. hellferbreakfast Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 8:12 am

   I’ve heard that a laser pointed directly into the lense wreaks havoc with these cameras. IF it’s done as a picture is being taken.

4. Mysjif Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 8:48 am

   The problem, as stated is when the information falls in the wrong hands. The reference to the Claudia Laurence case is that the police could follow her for 3 miles without leaving an office. What if the state scares you into allowing this type of surveillance then says, eg.”We’re destroying the economy , taking your shit and your gonna work for us or else!” by the time all that “security” exist’s they’ll have a real easy time with the “targeted assassination’s” of dissenting “citizens”. Basically, open your fucking eyes before its too late!!!

5. Cousin Id Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 9:47 am

   Mysjif, It’s already too late. BTW, I got a ticket for running a red light (empty intersection), i.e. a light that turned red before I could get out of the intersection, in Riverdale, GA. I was doing about 30 mpg in a 45 zone, so I received a”non-criminal violation” ticket for $70. what the fuck is a non-criminal violation!? I’d like to take a shotgun to every one of them, but I think the laser is more, er, practical. Thanks for the advice, hell!

6. USMC Grunt Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am

   In the rich areas of Maryland we have cameras everywhere….red light cameras…..speed camera tickets…and other weird cameras on top of every traffic light post….and cops hiding everywhere…..meanwhile in the shitty areas u have more freedom …but u have to deal with the human trash

   

   dno7956 Reply:
   July 16th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

   The police and law enforcement, in general, have degraded themselves to be nothing more than Tax Collectors. I was recently chased down by one who thought I did not have on a seat belt. Wrong. What an idiot.

   

   BILL Reply:
   July 16th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   I HOPE THE RICH WILL ENJOY THEIR GRAND ILLUISION ABOUT THE GOV PROTECTING THEM AND PROVIDING EVER THING FOR THE RICH TILL THE GOVERMENT FALLS LIKE THE ROMAN EMPIER ITS COMEING SOONER THAN LATER ENJOY TO THE RICH ENJOY BEING GOVERMENT SCUM BAGS

7. reconmarine Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 11:46 am

   We own(NWO) you. Q.E.D.

   

   Jerusalem Reply:
   July 16th, 2009 at 11:23 pm

   Hello Recon, my name is Jerusalem. I am here to convert you.

8. howey Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

   what do you get when you cross a P E N I S with a TELEPHONE POLE ?

   …a 30 ft long cak that wants to reach out and touch someone!