From: Liberty and Security in a Changing World 12 December 2012 At the same time, the idea of security refers to a quite different and equally fundamental value, captured in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .” (emphasis added). This form of security is a central component of the right of privacy, which Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously described as “the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”1 As Brandeis wrote, “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. . . .They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.”2 1 Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438, 478 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 2 Id. Why isnt this possible any longer in this country? This protection is indispensable to the protection of security, properly conceived. In a free society, one that is genuinely committed to selfgovernment, people are secure in the sense that they need not fear that their conversations and activities are being watched, monitored, questioned, interrogated, or scrutinized. Citizens are free from this kind of fear. In unfree societies, by contrast, there is no right to be let alone, and people struggle to organize their lives to avoid the government’s probing eye. The resulting unfreedom jeopardizes, all at once, individual liberty, self-government, economic growth, and basic ideals of citizenship. That explains a lot - unfreedom. It might seem puzzling, or a coincidence of language, that the word “security” embodies such different values. But the etymology of the word solves the puzzle; there is no coincidence here. In Latin, the word “securus” offers the core meanings, which include “free from care, quiet, easy,” and also “tranquil; free from danger, safe.” People who are at physical risk because of a threat of external violence are by definition in danger; they are not safe. So too, people made insecure by their own government, in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, can hardly be “free from care” or “tranquil.” No they cant. Some people believe that the two forms of security are in irreconcilable conflict with one another. They contend that in the modern era, with serious threats to the homeland and the rise of modern communications technologies, the nation must choose between them. We firmly reject this view. It is unsuppofted by the facts. It is inconsistent with our traditions and our law. Risks to privacy. It is self-evident that as more information is acquired, the risk to privacy increases as well. One reason is that officials might obtain personal or private information that has nothing to do with threats of violence or indeed with crinimality at all. History shows that the acquisition of information can create risks of misuse and abuse, perhaps in the form of intrusion into a legitimately private sphere. History also shows that when government is engaged in surveillance, it can undermine public trust, and in that sense render its own citizens insecure. Privacy is a central aspect of liberty, and it must be safeguarded. How do you get it back after it has been taken from you and abused? Risks to freedom and civil liberties on the Internet and elsewhere. Liberty includes a range of values, such as freedom of specch, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, that go well beyond privacy. If people are fearful that their conversations are being monitored, expressions fo doubt about or opposition to current policies and leaders may be chilled, and the democratic process itself may be compromised. Along with many other nations, the United States has been committed to the preservation and expansion of the Internet as an open, global space for freedom of expression. The pursuit of Internet freedom represents the effort to protect human rights online. These rights include the right to speak out, to dissent, and to offer or receive information across national borders. Citizens ought to be able to enjoy these rights free from fear that their words will result in punishment or threat. A particular concern involves preservation of the rights, and the security, of journalists and the press; thier rights and their security are indispensable to self government. For years now I have faced punishment and threat in public - something that continues to this very day. Some safeguards are not subject to balancing at all. In a free society, public officials should never engage in surveillance in order to punish their political enemies; to restrict freedom of speech or religion; to suppress legitimate criticism and dissent; to help their preferred companies or industries; to provide domestic companies with an unfair competitive advantate; or to benefit or burden members of groups defined in terms of religion, ethnicity, race, or gender. These prohibitions are foundational, and they appy both inside and outside our territorial borders. And if this has happened to a U.S. citizen what can make it stop? Im serious with this question. Ive had enough punishment simply because I dont think how others do. And it hasnt been a small amount of punishment. And not only in one place. But tends to be worse in GOP strongholds. Im not joking about that.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 04:01:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015