It Shouldn't Surprise You At All

I don't know. I don't know if any of it surprises me anymore. But it certainly frustrates me. Oy vey.

"The law, which is intended as a stopgap and expires in six months . . ."

What gap exactly is it stopping? The gap between ethics and lack thereof?

I don't know. If I am to consider myself a socialist, which more and more I think I do, do I have to succumb to such invasions of privacy? Do I have to say that if the government gives me services, support and community, I have to succumb to the measures it deems appropriate to keep me safe—trust for trust? If not, why not? Why do I consider these acts, these violations of privacy, so unethical?

I believe that the right to privacy is an ethical if not a constitutional right. (I've been through this, albeit ages ago; I don't necessarily agree with everything I wrote two years ago, but I'd say my views on privacy rights still stand.) Why and how do I believe that? Why do we need the ability to maintain this separation from other human beings? What makes me think that's important?

I guess the question that leads to is, what would a society be if we didn't have privacy? A society without privacy is a society where individuals cannot control their actions. If your actions are continually monitored by outside sources, or could be at any point—well, whaddayaknow, I've discovered the panopticon. It becomes a society in which people control themselves according to the rules of the society. But aren't all social codes like that? Isn't it insanity not to do that? So the element of choice, then, is what makes the difference. Why does choice matter? It allows for the possibility of divergent authority. Why do we need divergent authority? Because the real problem with the panopticon, I guess, is that there's no check on the person who's in it. Which is to say, the element of choice is the only way to ensure that there are more than self-generated checks on everyone. Which sounds contradictory, but it's true. That's the guarantee of a society really being able to keep itself an equal system: it requires privacy. It's not just voting, not just being a republic with a constitutional system, it's being a system that respects individuals.

I'm kind of tired, and it's late-ish, so I may not have the logic solid, but if it still works in the morning I'm pretty proud of that. So, then, Bush is supporting, and by supporting I mean being, a system where we only have outsider checks. And really, it's entirely unsurprising.

But boy, does the whole thing blow. Let's see where we're at in six months. Let's see if Congress can get its mind cleared up. Though at this point I'm not optimistic.