Privacy vs. National Security?

This is a false choice.  The desire to survive will always outweigh the wish to be left alone.

It is true that a recent Pew survey had “only” 62% willing to give priority to security.  But I suggest that nearly every one of the remaining 38% would quickly switch sides (or move from the “don’t know” category) if their personal safety were perceived to be at risk.  No right matters if one is not around to enjoy it.

The challenge for a society that strives to be free is how to minimize the restrictions on privacy and liberty that are necessary for national security.

Some restraints are obviously appropriate.  It makes no sense for there to be a public discussion of methods for intelligence-gathering by the government.  For such methods to bear fruit ( i.e. knowledge of enemies plans and activities), confidentiality is vital.

“Transparency” is a term currently in vogue among critics, on both the left and right, of the National Security Agency’s phone data collection program.  But we, as members of the general public, don’t need to, nor should, know what lies behind the veil of secrecy.  Simply put, we lack the expertise to evaluate its significance and, of course, the revelation would likely render the subject activities useless.

 

Don’t misunderstand.  I surely am not endorsing a blank check on all national security concerns to the president, whether Obama or a successor.  As with all power, a check and potential restraint is vital to the survival of maximum liberty consistent with national security. 

But that is the role for Congress and the judiciary to fill - not the public.  America, after all, largely remains a republic.  It is not a democracy in the Greek sense.  As such, our government is a representative one.  We rely on members of Congress and their staffs to provide the expertise and  discretion  advisable in their role as agents to provide for our – and the nation’s – best interests.

“Trust me” is not a popular phrase when applied to the government, particularly for conservatives.  But, really, what option is there when the possibility of massive terror attacks is a constant fact of life?

Of course, skepticism regarding authority is always a healthy attitude.  IRS abuses are a timely reminder that power does, indeed, corrupt. 

Accordingly, we must be vigilant always.  Insist that our representatives and president and judicial overseers require that national security measures that impact liberty and privacy satisfy this litmus test:  are they necessary to combat realistic (as opposed to theoretical) threats to our safety?  And are they the least intrusive and restrictive possible to serve their purpose?