www.aclu.orgJOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTIONDONATEABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office Blog of Rights Homepage Support the ACLU

Join Us At:

Sep 17th, 2008 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg! Reddit Delicious Facebook
Posted by Noam Biale at 4:58pm

Surveillance Society: Stepping Back from the Precipice

If you’re like me, you measure the passage of time by your annual celebration of Constitution Day. Personally, I look forward all year to decorating the Tree of Liberty and lighting the Nation of Laws, Not Menorah.

Still, it’s hard not to look upon this year’s Constitution Day — our last under the presidency of George W. Bush — and not get a little wistful. As some popular musicians once said, “What a long, strange trip it’s been.” For those of us who care about the Constitution, that pretty well sums up the last eight years. The trip has certainly been long.

With each passing year we’ve seen a greater proliferation of technology designed to invade our privacy — from so-called “smart” ID cards enhanced with radio frequency chips to networked CCTV cameras with facial and license-plate recognition software, to DNA databanks and beyond. We’ve also seen the enactment, sometimes overtly but often in secret, of new government surveillance programs and policies, which in turn create a market for more privacy-invasive technology.

This combined trend is nothing new. The first major articulation of the right to privacy in American legal thinking, an 1890 article in the Harvard Law Review by Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren, was in part a response to the increasing ubiquity of a relatively recent technological innovation at the time — still photography. The authors warned of what they saw as the vanishing freedom to live “screened from public observation.”

Brandeis, of course, went on to the U.S. Supreme Court and his belief in a fundamental right to privacy made its way into our constitutional vernacular. (Samuel Warren, who graduated from Harvard Law School second in his class — behind Brandeis — went on to a career as a prominent Boston attorney, but did not achieve the renown and lasting influence of his coauthor. Which provides a good lesson for pursuing a legal career: make sure none of your peers is Louis Brandeis.)

Progress, of course, tends to be much slower than its opposite. It is important to remember that Justice Brandeis’s main treatise on privacy did not actually establish it as a right — it was part of a dissent in the 1928 case of Olmstead v. United States. Brandeis’s view was not adopted by a majority of the Court until 1967 in Katz v. United States. Both of these cases were about whether the Fourth Amendment covered warrantless wiretapping of telephones. Some seem to think we still haven't settled this issue, even 80 years after Olmstead.

Indeed, as you can read in any of today’s posts , many of the fundamental rights that took decades to achieve have been greatly diminished, if not eviscerated in just the last eight years. In the case of privacy, we are reaching a true precipice — a veritable doomsday moment that threatens to change us irrevocably from a free society to a total surveillance state.

But there is hope on this Constitution Day — the last, I repeat, of the Bush Administration. Americans are beginning to recognize the impending darkness of a surveillance society, and in a few cases are refusing to go gentle into that good night. We have seen this in the state rebellion against Real ID, the Bush Administration’s nightmare national ID scheme, in the outrage over the millionth name added to the Terrorist Watch List, and in a recent legal victory by the ACLU of Massachusetts to force the state police to return DNA samples it collected from innocent people in a 2002 dragnet.

These stories are just the tip of the spear, of course, and we have a long way to go from five minutes to midnight to the full protection of what Justice Brandeis called “the most comprehensive of rights.” The next President will have an unprecedented, and perhaps unrepeatable, opportunity to determine whether we step back from the precipice, or go over it. It is up to us, as Constitution Voters, to pull them in the right direction.

Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg! Reddit Delicious Facebook

Tags: constitutionvoter

We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.

One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites.

We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published.

Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.

1 Response to "Surveillance Society: Stepping Back from the Precipice"

  1. Frank Says:

    I'm a constitution voter, but it's not going to be possible to support either of the two party candidates. The constitution does not grant the federal government the right to criminalize cannabis. The constitution gives only Congress, not the Federal Reserve, the right to coin and regulate the money supply. The constitution gives Congress, not the president, the right to declare war and make treaties. Other ACLU members would do well to step out of the Bill of Rights and review the entire constitution.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.
 

Quicksearch


© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map

Statistics image