GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Roots of surveillance standoff go back decades

• 49711
  

  I want to congratulate Shane Harris on an excellent story. For months, I have been trying to make sense of the surveillance debate, but his story really made this contorversy intelligible, I think primarily because he took the time to provide an historical perspective.

  A valuable piece of journalism without a doubt. Thank you for having the perspicacity to publish this.

  Joe McDonagh Posted April 30, 2008 1:39 PM
• 49703
  

  Wow! What a well-written article. Nice job, and the hook at the beginning really caught me.

  Thanks for such an engaging piece.

  Patrick Posted April 30, 2008 11:08 AM
• 49687
  

  I'm interested in the answer to this question:

  We all know that individuals, in the privacy of their homes, do things that may not be legal, ethical, etc., while they otherwise act as upright, moral, and law-abiding citizens outside their home. Perhaps I should say, "all" individuals. There is a natural proclivity in human nature to leave morality behind when someone is not looking over your shoulder. To whatever extent you may believe that government officials may be constrained by regulations, oversight, organizational culture, personal morality and principle, you have to admit that when such individuals are in the privacy of their own office, with the door closed, they may take advantage of their ability to access the personal phone calls and internet communications of any and all citizens.

  My question, which I'm sure you're wondering when I'm going to get to, in my roundabout way, is this:

  Is it possible that persons working for the government can look at whatever sites I'm visiting, who I'm calling, what messages I'm sending, etc., at any time, only with the foreknowledge of my name and residence?

  What prevents such an individual from closing their office door and browsing through anyone and everyone's personal messaging and communications? Given the current, and past adminisitrations' firm belief that government should monitor the moral compliance of private individuals with their concept of right and wrong, what's to prevent them from accessing andone's visits to web sites, emails, etc.? If they've gained authorization to peer at my next-door neighbor who is suspected to be a spy for Russia, what stops them from looking at me as a "peripheral" subject?

  I know that anyone in government, speaking for their agency, would adhere to the proper "party line," but what is the real world behavior of individuals in their government offices with their office door closed, wrapped in their personal cloak of righteousness, snooping for what they deem to be "wrongdoers?"

  Can anyone out there have the requisite knowledge of such inner workings, and knowledgeably answer my question?

  Whatever your answer, it's a good idea for a movie, isn't it?

  Robert Scalise Posted April 30, 2008 9:00 AM
• 49683
  

  Gongratulations on a well written and well researched article. Suscint. Informative. Bravo!

  Tim Farris Posted April 30, 2008 8:43 AM
• 49669
  

  One cannot expect law enforcement to limit their demands for information. However there needs to be legal and enforceable limits on how they go about getting it. A warrant is one of those limits. Remove those limits and the chances of abuse expand exponentially. There also needs to be EXTERNAL checks and balances on law enforcement's request for information. Letting the fox guard the henhouse is a recipe for abuse. No agency, law enforcement included, should ever operate in a vacuum, approving its own actions.

  James C Posted April 30, 2008 7:26 AM