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

February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
Eoin Higgins
Please Clap: the Jeb Bush Campaign Pre-Mortem
Joseph Mangano – Janette D. Sherman
The Invisible Epidemic: Radiation and Rising Rates of Thyroid Cancer
Andre Vltchek
Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder
Jack Smith
Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again
Robert Fantina
As Goes Iowa, So Goes the Nation?
Dean Baker
Market Turmoil, the Fed and the Presidential Election
John Grant
Israel Moves to Check Its Artists
John Wight
Who Was Cecil Rhodes?
David Macaray
Will There Ever Be Anyone Better Than Bernie Sanders?
Christopher Brauchli
Suffer Little Children: From Brazil to Flint
JP Sottile
Did Fox News Help the GOP Establishment Get Its Groove Back?
Binoy Kampmark
Legalizing Cruelties: the Australian High Court and Indefinite Offshore Detention
John Feffer
Wrestling With Iran
Rob Prince – Ibrahim Kazerooni
Syria Again
Louisa Willcox
Park Service Finally Stands Up for Grizzlies and Us
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail