Government Surveillance Debate Mostly Irrelevant

The Senate recently approved a short-term renewal of a controversial surveillance program used by U.S. spy agencies. The House is struggling to keep such authority from expiring. As much as I’d like excessive and unnecessary surveillance to end, the debate is almost completely irrelevant. Governments have never used the lack of authority to surveil… to surveil.

My first introduction to rampant illegal spying was in the ‘90s, with the Carnivore program. Former president, Bill Clinton, was in office at the time. Foreign and domestic spying occurred long before that… ever since the dawn of governments, and the head chieftains of ancient tribes.

The stopgap measure for “legal spying” came after House Republican leaders unveiled a revised five-year extension, far longer than the 18-month renewal Trump and GOP leaders had been pushing. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a longtime critic of the surveillance program, pressed for changes. Wyden said he has never seen this level of support on both sides of the political aisle — and in both chambers of Congress, for real revisions to the surveillance tool.

It’s all leading to yet another showdown in a few weeks, as Congress dives into the surveillance tool that pits Americans’ privacy rights – which in the dark caverns of governments, doesn’t exist - against what U.S. officials say is an effective program for national security… which is nothing more than a handy excuse to do whatever they wish. Trust requires faith, and intelligent people see neither.

Among the changes proposed were new provisions to guarantee only FBI attorneys could authorize queries on U.S. citizens (insert sarcastic laughter). It would also enhance criminal penalties on those who unlawfully conduct such inquiries or disclose the surveillance information (insert more sarcastic laughter).

At the center of the standoff is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits the CIA, NSA, FBI and “other alphabet agencies” to collect and analyze vast amounts of overseas communications without a warrant. However, such communications often involve innocent Americans coincidentally interacting with foreign targets.

I have little problem with a small number of “collateral damage civilians” when preventing actual terrorist plots, large-scale cyber-intrusions, and foreign espionage. However, government has time and time again proven they will abuse the system – many times for personal gain, and sometimes… for their own personal enjoyment, no matter what surveillance system is being used. Since the dawn of the digital world, one has had zero privacy when the powers that be choose to abuse it.

Opponents of the surveillance tool point to recent misuses. The FBI repeatedly violated their own standards during intelligence research related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol... and racial justice protests in 2020. Yet they claim to know nothing about Epstein. Hypocrites.

Simple fact is, all legal surveillance programs could end at the stroke of midnight, and surveillance would continue to operate non-stop and just as strong. It would simply demand more secrecy than already exists, but at least the citizens could have some level of recourse... some of the time... at least in theory.

Source used: Associated Press