By Tim Newton
The Guardian reports that the NSA has gone further in it's collection of private data in wide spread gathering, using a program called "PRISM" to collect private data from several top internet companies including Facebook, Yahoo, and Google. To quote from their article:
"The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers."
All of the companies involved claim that they have not willingly participated in this program, and have denied all knowledge of said program. This program again falls under the reauthorized Patriot Act provisions, which allow for this and similar types of monitoring as we saw with the collection of data from Verizon subscribers.
President Obama today responded to these actions by saying “They make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity,” Obama said. He added that the programs are “under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and they do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of U.S. citizens and U.S. residents.” He also said “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”
The question each of us must be asking is was I part of this, and if so why was I included? A CNN poll taken shortly after the Boston Marathon Bombing shows that 49% of Americans are not willing to give up their civil liberties to fight terrorism, with 40% saying they would. Since the beginning of the institutions of governments by mankind we have had a constant struggle with balancing the rights of the individual and the protection of many. With the increasingly difficult blurry line in the global war on terror, including domestic terrorism it becomes difficult to see where our government won't go to "protect" us. I am not saying that we will soon see anything like "1984," or "V for Vendetta." I am however realistic in my view of government. It also begs the question is it necessary? Are acts of terrorism preventable by such means, and if so where is the line and who is watching the line of how far is too far?
In 2007 a popular senator heavily criticized the same tactics employed today. "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient." Yes, that would be our current President who said that. Watch the full speech below.
Our country was founded, when men seeing that their rights were being abridged in the name of protection, became fed up with those actions and pulled away from their national government. In the Declaration of Independence it says:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"To target and gather such data and expect the American people to just trust that the data will be kept and protected from abuses would mean we would basically have to forget about all of human history, which has shown that eventually when people are given power they will seek to abuse it. When first enacted, there was heavy concern by individuals in the nation that social security numbers would become a way of identifying and singling out individuals, so there was a guarantee that social security numbers would never be used as an identification method. Just one example how about the IRS targeting that we continue to learn more about? At hearing after hearing Lois Lerner and Steve Miller denied that such targeting was occurring, even as they new it was occurring.
Again I'm not saying that government serves no purpose, but that government should be constrained and not left to roam free. We have an established constitution, which should be followed."
It seems after each of these questions people have asked so what should be done? My answer to that so what is this, let's focus on reigning in presidential power again, increase our checks and balances, and make sure that the government is held accountable by the people for actions that are violating our rights. Several of our founders thought that a bill of rights would be unnecessary because they never thought that such basic freedoms would be infringed upon because they had not granted power to the government to infringe upon them. It seems more important than ever for us to reestablish these rights as unacceptable to be infringed upon, and make sure that the government is aware of it. We need to speak out and make our voice heard. America is not the land of big brother government, but the land of the free and home of the brave, we will not be bullied by big government bureaucrats, and we will not be silenced.
All of the companies involved claim that they have not willingly participated in this program, and have denied all knowledge of said program. This program again falls under the reauthorized Patriot Act provisions, which allow for this and similar types of monitoring as we saw with the collection of data from Verizon subscribers.
President Obama today responded to these actions by saying “They make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity,” Obama said. He added that the programs are “under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and they do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of U.S. citizens and U.S. residents.” He also said “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”
The question each of us must be asking is was I part of this, and if so why was I included? A CNN poll taken shortly after the Boston Marathon Bombing shows that 49% of Americans are not willing to give up their civil liberties to fight terrorism, with 40% saying they would. Since the beginning of the institutions of governments by mankind we have had a constant struggle with balancing the rights of the individual and the protection of many. With the increasingly difficult blurry line in the global war on terror, including domestic terrorism it becomes difficult to see where our government won't go to "protect" us. I am not saying that we will soon see anything like "1984," or "V for Vendetta." I am however realistic in my view of government. It also begs the question is it necessary? Are acts of terrorism preventable by such means, and if so where is the line and who is watching the line of how far is too far?
In 2007 a popular senator heavily criticized the same tactics employed today. "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient." Yes, that would be our current President who said that. Watch the full speech below.
Our country was founded, when men seeing that their rights were being abridged in the name of protection, became fed up with those actions and pulled away from their national government. In the Declaration of Independence it says:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
Now mind you Jefferson did not specify all unalienable rights that we have inherently been endowed with, but he makes it clear that if a Government becomes destructive of the rights of man we must alter it in one form or another. I think the first step is to increase congressional oversight and accountability. Congress was trusted by the founders with more powers precisely because it takes longer for it to act, and by the slow movement through compromise the rights of individuals have a greater tendency to remain protected. Even our current president, when a member of congress could easily see that this was an overreach of power. Something within his greed and ambition seems to have blinded him from the fact that these actions are clearly overstepping his constitutional bounds, as he himself said then: "To target and gather such data and expect the American people to just trust that the data will be kept and protected from abuses would mean we would basically have to forget about all of human history, which has shown that eventually when people are given power they will seek to abuse it. When first enacted, there was heavy concern by individuals in the nation that social security numbers would become a way of identifying and singling out individuals, so there was a guarantee that social security numbers would never be used as an identification method. Just one example how about the IRS targeting that we continue to learn more about? At hearing after hearing Lois Lerner and Steve Miller denied that such targeting was occurring, even as they new it was occurring.
Again I'm not saying that government serves no purpose, but that government should be constrained and not left to roam free. We have an established constitution, which should be followed."
It seems after each of these questions people have asked so what should be done? My answer to that so what is this, let's focus on reigning in presidential power again, increase our checks and balances, and make sure that the government is held accountable by the people for actions that are violating our rights. Several of our founders thought that a bill of rights would be unnecessary because they never thought that such basic freedoms would be infringed upon because they had not granted power to the government to infringe upon them. It seems more important than ever for us to reestablish these rights as unacceptable to be infringed upon, and make sure that the government is aware of it. We need to speak out and make our voice heard. America is not the land of big brother government, but the land of the free and home of the brave, we will not be bullied by big government bureaucrats, and we will not be silenced.
