Much has been said on the state of civil liberties since last months attack on the US. Some are predicting Orwellian outcomes, cameras on every street corner, increased identification including the conceivable requirement of National ID Cards - an idea that has floated around many circles in Washington - as well as lost Internet and e-mail privacy.
To a degree, this latter issue may be the first liberty to be contested, as it has been speculated that both e-mail and America Online's popular Instant Message service were the main mode of communication between the terrorist cells both in the States and abroad. Soon, the FBI may know that you are "Away From Your Computer."
Pressing as this all may sound, the loss of liberty during times of war is not new, and we as a nation have a long tradition of bending the Constitution just a little bit to allow for "increased security." But current concerns about liberty have been relegated to the staunch defenders of civil liberty, such as those affiliated with the ACLU, as the average American has not only not been wary of infringement on rights, but has also expressed a certain willingness to give up liberty for security.
In these trying times we have seen a great desire for personal safety over personal freedom. As Americans try to reconcile the events of Sept. 11, these two brooding strains of life will play increasingly paramount roles in our everyday lives.
What then becomes of most concern to the average citizen should be the "back door" dealing - those decisions not made by law-makers or elected officials, but those made by appointed committees, presidential advisors, and other various organizations, the FBI for instance.
Ninety-nine percent of these decisions are often unnoticed and rather benign, but for that one percent, the newly implemented policies represent a quiet attack on our everyday lives. For instance, the FBI computer program Carnivore was allowed, without congressional approval, to track and read e-mail from any single individual in the world - tantamount to the government opening and reading your private correspondences. This is an extreme case, but it shows how much goes on behind the eyes of the public.
A more recent example of this backdoor brokering with liberty in correlation with the Sept. 11 attacks is a recent decision where the Massachusetts Board of Education, an appointed body, decided to mandate that all public universities and colleges release information on foreign students as well as create lists of students who fall out of compliance with visas to the INS. This act does curtail some rights of the visiting student, but in exchange for the privilege of studying in America, foreign students should expect some scrutiny of their records. Though this act is seemingly not terribly controversial, this represents a broader trend that has struck the nation's universities and colleges, both public and private. Administrators are willingly allowing the FBI and law enforcement unfettered access to all student records without hesitation.
Based on a US Department of Education interpretation of the 1974 privacy law, schools can release all records if there is a "health or safety emergency." The records are not merely academic or disciplinary ones, but also available to the FBI are all records, credit card transactions, bank statements, as well as Internet and phone records.
Going further, certain reports show the FBI has requested unfettered access to all student records, citizen of the US or not. We should all be somewhat wary when these types of actions are implemented, done of course without congressional approval and behind closed doors. It is true that in some instances, there should be close scrutiny of student records, Americans or not, but it is the clandestine manner in which these actions are being enacted that should be the most criticized. These are essentially laws created extra-congress and outside the executive branch.
We should give the FBI and CIA some broad abilities at this time in our history, but we must also realize the tight-rope the nation is walking, between constitutional freedom and governmental powers, and give neither the President nor law enforcement a completely blank slate to do as they please.
They should be able to go somewhat far, as what is necessary for investigations to proceed, but they should do so somewhat publicly and be held accountable for their procedures. All decisions should be liable for review by Congress, and those more controversial measures be held under a public microscope.
The bottom line is we should support all efforts by law enforcement to a degree, but we should perpetually remain skeptical and vigilant about laws concerning our privacy, our rights as citizens of the nation to exist without the undue intrusion of exterior bodies.
