Government eavesdropping threatens privacy

By Nick Obradovich

In 2001, during my first year of high school, I was afraid. I had seen the Sept. 11 attacks on CNN and had seen ghoulish pictures of the mastermind, Osama bin Laden. For the first time, I had the notion that I could easily perish at the hands of terrorism.

Fear dominated my understanding of international relations and pushed me towards supporting increased national security. I realized I could die. I wanted the government's assurance that it was doing everything it could legally do to help prevent attacks on the United States.

Because of my mentality, one that many of my fellow patriots shared, I was relieved when the politicians in Washington D.C. first passed the USA Patriot Act. Finally, there was something substantive to prevent further attacks on our country. I was a bit curious as to how having unfettered access to my library and bookstore records would help stop Osama bin "bad guy" Laden, but I saw no direct implications of this on my everyday life. Like many other Americans, I didn't worry too much about it.

After all, national security seemed to be more important than the privacy of my public library records.

In conjunction with the Patriot Act came the stringent security levels at airports. Again, I was glad that the government was finally doing something to protect me. The fact that a balding round fellow named Hank had the duty of patting me down, and making sure that I didn't have any explosive devices strapped to my inner thighs assured me that I was safe, and in good hands.

Hank was very thorough. I knew no terrorists would be sneaking bombs on my plane.

I lived with these security measures, and tacitly accepted the fact that the sanctity of my civil liberties might be in question, all for the assurance of my safety.

A few years passed, and there were no major attacks on the homeland. I began to think about the issue of my own privacy a little more. What advantage, really, did the unfettered monitoring of my library records have to do with my safety?

Soon after I began to ask these questions, more pressing revelations about my own privacy rights came to the forefront. On Dec. 16, 2005, The New York Times announced the covert warrantless wiretapping program that the National Security Agency (NSA), under the orders from the White House, had been operating since the Sept. 11 attacks. The NSA and the government insisted the program was only used for foreign surveillance, and it did not target American citizens.

Then, it was revealed that Americans were also being targeted, but only if they were calling overseas.

Then, it was revealed that sometimes, rarely (the government insisted), the NSA accidentally warrantlessly tapped domestic phone calls from citizen to citizen. Oops!

Next, in the May 11, 2006, issue of USA Today, the covert requisition of more of my private information was released. It turns out that the major phone companies, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, had engaged in a secret exchange with the NSA of call records for hundreds of thousands of American citizens. The records of all my calls back home, no doubt infused with terrorist activity, were ripe for the government's picking.

At this point I was a little more troubled than I had been when Hank had subjected me to a pat-down of my inner thighs a few years ago.

How much of my privacy am I willing to allow the government to take from me in the name of safety and security? Why does the government insist on the false bifurcation or choice that I must either give up my right to privacy or lose my right to personal safety? I ask these questions knowing the full risk I take of being labeled unpatriotic, and being shunned by the real patriots of this country.

Thankfully, on Aug. 17, 2006, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled on the constitutionality of the NSA program. She stated, "The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments [the Bill of Rights], has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs [the ACLU] as well."

We can only know the full extent to which our rights have been taken away once they are gone.

Nick Obradovich is a sophomore undeclared major.