FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The ACLU, Privacy and Obama

by BINOY KAMPMARK

It was a statement that remains powerful for its clear and striking defiance: wanting to be left alone.  It was not merely a position taken by Greta Garbo who fobbed off the fans and detractors with equal disdain simply wanting to be let alone; it was also a statement of legal supposition that became law.

The authors of what remains one of the common law’s greatest expositions of a principle said it best: separateness is sacred, and the law must keep up with the strides, lengthy and indifferent to consequences as they tend to be, of technology.

In 1890, Louis D. Brandeis and Samuel D. Warren noted in the Harvard Law Review that incursions into people’s lives – smutty rags, yellow papers, and the telegraph – had all done their bit to encroach on privacy.  “The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and decency.  Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and the vicious, but has become a trade”.  Through tight reasoning and analogy, the able jurists decided that grounds for a civil wrong in breaching privacy might be found.  Since then, it has become part of American law and that of the European Union.

This was before the age of total surveillance and technological mastery, before the metadata freaks of the U.S. surveillance state and such programs as Prism, before the privacy loathing Mark Zuckerberg decided that social networks should spell an end to that childish attempt of humans to create a “sphere” of separateness from their fellow beings.  Even in 1890, it was becoming apparent that the tentacles of the state and overly interested private citizens might decide that privacy was something that either did not exist or should best be left aside.

With such entities as the EU furious at the prospects that citizens have been snooped upon by the minions of the U.S. empire, it is time to unleash the privacy attack dogs.  Edward Snowden’s revelations were simply the first firing shot in what is becoming a broader battle against the surveillance supremos.

We can’t, however, expect European officials to be entirely at one in confronting their American colleagues over examining the contents of the linen.  After all, as has been pointed out, “Europe wants the information that American intelligence provides” (Washington Post, Jun 11).  The observation from Hans-Peter Friedrich, Germany’s interior minister, is telling. “We get very good and reliable information from our American friends and partners that has played an important role in the past in preventing attacks in Germany.”

In the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union has decided to take the juridical plunge and haul the government before the judges for what it sees as an undue interference in liberties.  It has filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against James Clapper, General Keith Alexander, and various other officials of the Obama administration in what it claims is an operation that “vacuums up information about every phone call placed within, from, or to the United States.”

According to the ACLU’s own remit, stated on its site, “We are dedicated to protecting and expanding the First Amendment freedoms of expression, association, and inquiry; expanding the right to privacy and increasing the control that individuals have over their personal information; and ensuring that civil liberties are enhanced rather than compromised by new advances in science and technology.”

The suit itself – ACLU v Clapper – “challenges the government’s dragnet acquisition of Plaintiff’s telephone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1861.”  The ACLU argues that the accumulation of “metadata” amounts to “snatching every American’s address book – with annotations detailing whom we spoke to, when we talked, for how long, and from where.”  To that end, the ACLU has attempted to seek a declaration that such “mass call tracking” violates the first and fourth amendments of the Constitution, and a host of other laws under the U.S.C..

The important feature of the fourth amendment for those not familiar with its scope (that it would seem, include many in the Obama administration) lies in its protection of a person’s security “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”.  Probable cause for such action is required, and under warrant. Prism, through its scope, effectively initiates such “unreasonable searches” and “seizures” without such cause.

Furthermore, the ACLU argues that such legal instruments as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which should, in theory, protect chat logs and email, is in need of a severe spring clean.  One can only agree with these assertions after the Prism monster was let out of the bag, along with such nasties as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).  Uncle Sam is not merely watching you; he is reading your logs and savouring them with hope, relying on corporate friends to do his bidding.

Previous efforts by the ACLU to challenge such surveillance programs have come to nought.  The reason has been simple though not entirely convincing – standing has been difficult to show, as has been proof of damage. On this occasion, the organisation is a customer of Verizon, and for that reason, claims it can bring a lawsuit in its own name.  The necessary “harm” will be easier to show.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) has similarly promised to file a class action suit against the Obama administration at the Supreme Court level challenging the legality of the action.  His wish list is extensive, but he is hoping to net 10 million Americans in an effort to overturn the policy (New American, Jun 12).

The fatuous defence that began circulating from the Obama administration after the Snowden revelations was that metadata was distinctly different from massive surveillance.  This was less a case of snooping than collating, gathering and systematising. But we know that Vice President Joe Biden, when he was a Senator, criticised record-collecting programs of the Bush administration in 2006, suggesting that such systems were “very, very intrusive” (ACLU, Jun 6).  The movement against such intrusion must has begun.  May it develop steam, rambunctiousness and courage.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious madness in Ulster
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
January 19, 2017
Melvin Goodman
America’s Russian Problem
Dave Lindorff
Right a Terrible Wrong: Why Obama Should Reverse Himself and Pardon Leonard Peltier
Laura Carlsen
Bringing Mexico to Its Knees Will Not “Make America Great Again”
John W. Whitehead
Nothing is Real: When Reality TV Programming Masquerades as Politics
Yoav Litvin
Time to Diss Obey: the Failure of Identity Politics and Protest
Mike Whitney
The Trump Speech That No One Heard 
Conn Hallinan
Is Europe Heading for a “Lexit”?
Stephen Cooper
Truth or Twitter? Why Donald Trump Is No John Steinbeck
Binoy Kampmark
Scoundrels of Patriotism: The Freeing of Chelsea Manning
Ramzy Baroud
The Balancing Act is Over: What Elor Azaria Taught Us about Israel
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail