Ted L Moss, Security Expert

CAN WE EXPECT PERSONAL PRIVACY IN A FREE SOCIETY

In 1787, the framers of the Constitution penned a magnificent document.
That document was intended to be a literal framework from which we could
derive the laws of our land; Laws which are essential to and ordered and
prosperous society.

The authors of our Constitution attempted to take into account all manner
of circumstances, which would be to the benefit and the general welfare of
the population. A population that was limited in its diversity with respect
to race, religion, and cultural background compared to today. If we today
attempted to write such a literal framework encompassing the interests of
each race, religion, cultural & ethnic background, it would be a monumental
task at best. At the very least it would be in congress for 20 to 30 years
and probably never come to fruition. So it is fortuitous that our small
country at the time had a very clear and present danger to its freedom. That
clear and present danger being the oppression by its mother country Britain.
That oppression being in the form of secrecy, one-sided governmental rule,
usually benefiting the government at hand, the British Empire. Taxation
without representation, failure to provide due process, and the ability of
the occupying armys of the time to take what they needed as they pleased.
Government officials were not held accountable; therefore, the people were
powerless to present their grievances in any manner other then that which
inevitably lead to this wonderful country the United States of America.

It is in this wonderful country, the United States of America, at the dawn
of a new millennium, that the personal computer, internet, blogs, cable TV,
and a deluge of other information, is being sold, disseminated, looked at,
and enjoyed by multitudes of people at a break neck pace.
Some of this information is, of course, beneficial, educational, vital
to the growth of our economy, and has rejuvenated the United States as a
leader in the world technological arena. The question, however, or the
specter, if you will, has been raised as to how much freedom is too much
freedom? This is not the first time that this question has come up in the
past. Celebrities and movie stars complain about their personal privacy
being invaded. The response by the media and the government is that their
privacy has become public domain. So has much of our own personal
information; information that we have unwittingly sold to the highest bidder
or at the very minimum given permission to re-sell, because we were unaware
of the consequences of signing the credit card application or subscribing to
a particular magazine. What you buy at the grocery store, the books you
check out at the library, the types of clothes you buy, the size of those
clothes, as well as videos you rent, are all cataloged and stored utilizing
the ever present universal UPC bar code that we have become so familiar with on
packages and goods of all types. Your magnetic stripe on your bank ATM card
keeps a record of your purchases, as does the check-cashing card that you use at
the grocery store.

This information then is sold or other wise disseminated to persons who
have a need to obtain information about how many consumers enjoy driving
sport utility vehicles or how much milk they consume in an average week.
Some of this information is useful to us. It can help retailers and
manufacturers give us what we want, thus making life simpler and shopping
easier.

In the days of our fore fathers, the whole concept of the Constitution, was
to make life easier for themselves. When a man was convicted of a crime, the
Constitution provided him the right to be tried in public by a jury of his
peers. A decision would be made publicly about his guilt or innocence and
how that person would be allowed to function in society in the future. If
found guilty, it was for the general welfare and common good of the people,
that the person be incarcerated for the purpose of either punishment or at
the very minimum justice. There were no secrets, presumably. The prosecutor
had to tell the defense what evidence they had against him and the defendant
had a right to meet his accuser face to face and cross-examine them under
oath. This being quite a different system then what the colonists were used
to. It, therefore, made sense that these records of public interest would be
considered public record and closely guarded and held as an offshoot of our
right to freedom of speech. The government should not have the right to keep
secret files on its citizens, on you, or your neighbor for that matter. If a
man is accused of a crime and he is publicly accused in a way that puts him
in a disreputable position amongst his peers, then he should have a right to
address those accusations and prove himself innocent.

For many years, however, city, county, and other governmental agencies, kept
these records confidential for the protection of the public. Former FBI
director, J. Edgar Hoover, found it extremely useful to keep secret files on
congressmen, politicians, and anyone who he felt was an enemy. He was able
to do this for many years and successfully ran a campaign of terror for his
own personal gain. When congress finally wised up to this, the Freedom of
Information Act, allowed for the release of those records by the government
regarding any citizen of the United States, provided that a national
security interest was not involved. Although the Federal Freedom of
Information Act does not require state, city, and county governments to
follow suit, they all subsequently did, as is the case with most federally
mandated acts. Now the same congress that was afraid of government secrecy
albeit for their own protection are concerned about privacy.

This, of course, creates the dilemma. Although I would like to know if my
neighbor is a child molester or a convicted felon, I certainly don’t want my
neighbor to know if I’ve had a DUI or a run in with the law. There is no
room for compromise in this matter. In a free society, it is our responsibility to
follow the rules handed down by our government and our fore fathers.
There is little room for interpretation, only a literal interpretation of the laws set
forth by the Constitution can be our best defense against a closed and secretive
government.

Subsequent acts passed by congress lawfully, are also our responsibility to
follow. We cannot on the one hand expect the freedom to protest a tax
increase or disagree with a politician about his policies on a foreign
matter and at the same time allow them to keep secret documents regarding
our public misconduct. Whether we are finally adjudicated of charges against
us, it is never the less a public record of the due process that we were
afforded under the Constitution of the United States. That due process will
reflect the fact that we were found not guilty or that the charges were
dismissed. It is up to us to live with the consequences of what life often
throws our way. When we attempt to make laws to protect us from every
possible harmful event that may happen to us, we not only limit our freedom,
but we empower those making the law to run our lives. It is our lives that
we must be accountable for. So when you apply for a credit card, read the
small print. Realize that you are giving them the authority to sell your
information about your buying habits, perhaps your social security
information. When you sign up for your driver’s license, which is a
privilege and not a right, there is implied consent that they can share that
information with insurance companies and insurance companies can in turn
share that information with others. Be careful what information you give
out, but understand that as the times change and the information super
highway in some ways infringe on your privacy, freedom of information and
thought are what ultimately keep us free.