Watching (Part 1)

By Martin Schatz

The scariest part of Orwell's masterpiece, "1984," was always the slight feeling of familiarity that pervaded the story.  We understand the "newspeak" immediately, even before the author lets us in on the definitions.  "Doublethink" is something that we recognize from reading the news everyday, especially during any mention of something as neutral as "collateral damage."  There is always the sense that, while things aren't that bad yet, we can foresee the possibility that things could, given the wrong set of circumstances, get to that point.


Technologically, there are no longer any restrictions to the Big Brother state that the citizens of "1984's" London find themselves in.  New and improved technologies, such as implantable microchips, data mining, DNA chips, and "brain-wave fingerprinting" all currently exist.  What keeps them from being used is a rapidly eroding set of laws and rights.  This safety net is being destroyed by both the privization of data collection and the quickening pace of technological breakthroughs.  Our laws simply do not have the time to keep up with the rapid-fire pace of innovation.


Consider the words of the ACLU's report titled "Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains:"
"The technologies of surveillance are developing at the speed of light, but the body of law that protects us is stuck back in the Stone Age.  In the past, new technologies that threatened our privacy, such as telephone wiretapping, were assimilated over time into our society. The legal system had time to adapt and reinterpret existing laws, the political system had time to consider and enact new laws or regulations, and the culture had time to absorb the implications of the new technology for daily life. Today, however, change is happening so fast that none of this adaptation has time to take place – a problem that is being intensified by the scramble to enact unexamined anti-terrorism measures. The result is a significant danger that surveillance practices will become entrenched in American life that would never be accepted if we had more time to digest them (italics my own)."

Historically, we have been very slow in recognizing how new technologies infringe on our 4th Amendment rights.  It took nearly 40 years for the Supreme Court to reverse its ruling that wire tapping did indeed constitute a "search" that would require a warrant before being undertaken.  This slow pace of evolution is, quite simply, terribly insufficient in terms of protecting us from new technologies.

 

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

A situation where we find ourselves in a state of perpetual surveillance does not require any apocalyptic event or radical change in government.  Instead, it can simply proceed through the mostly good intentions of law enforcement and intelligence services and with the support of people who are looking to keep Americans "safe."  The greatest evolutionary leap in surveillance capability and allowance was adopted in the aftermath of the September 11th, 2001 attacks in New York City.  

The Patriot Act was quickly developed after the 9/11 attacks as anti-terrorism legislation, signed into law little more than a month after the attacks, and was given little debate or oversight from Congress.  The ways in which this Act has eroded civil liberties and personal rights are well-documented, but for the sake of reference, I will borrow the below list from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:     

The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of "any crime of violence." Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans. Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of Americans.

PATRIOT eliminates Government accountability. While PATRIOT freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for Government activities, making it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government is taking.

PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.    

This is alarming, but as a normal, law-abiding citizen, should you care?  After all, if you are doing nothing wrong, then why worry? 

In our next segment on the subject, we will go into the ways in which this power is being subverted and expanded, and how we all are affected by this erosion of our civil liberties and the increasing power and secrecy available to Government, Business and Law Enforcement.


PDF Patriot Act
How PATRIOT Threatens Online Civil Liberties
FBI Surveillance - 4th Amendment 
Data Mining - How Companies Know Your Personal Information
Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains
Is the U.S. Turning Into a Surveillance Country
Obama: Giving Up On Change When it Comes to 9/11 Trials

The Potency and Necessity of Truth

By Eric Barnes

It is often said that "History is written by the conquerors". Perhaps this was a truism 300, 200 or even 50 years ago, however in this age of instantly accessible information and mounds of amassed data, history has already been written the moment it occurs and the facts are readily within the reach of anyone with the desire to drag often forgotten truth out of its hole, and present it for all to see.

This should be something common place and something that people applaud. The reality is something very different and quite instructive.

A Culture of Deceit

Different institutions have very different functions. When looking at the behavior of an institution or of its components, it is necessary to understand first what the function of that institution actually is.

Common perceptions: what the average American citizen thinks certain institutions are for can be thought provoking and troublesome when juxtaposed with the reality surrounding the institutions actions. Some examples that are quite singular...

- The Media.

The Average American generally thinks the function of the "The Media" is to inform them about important events happening domestically and internationally. "News" and other things that are considered valuable life information in the age of technology we all find ourselves in.

This is not what the media is nor is it what the media is actually designed to do.

The definition of "Media" is as follows:

The means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely

Once this is understood it's time to take a look at how the media determines what it will try and reach people with or influence them with and why.

Who controls the media? Not average people, and certainly not the pawns or "reporters" that are employed by the media. What’s left is the corporations that own these outlets and utilize them to amass profit and shift opinion in ways that will aid in the amassing of profit.

In a profit driven system such as American mass media anyone working within that institution has no choice but to conform to the demands of the institution. If they refused to do so they would simply be removed and someone else would be put in their place. More often than not this is unnecessary because the extensive apparatus of social control, thought prevention and intellectual isolationism is more than sufficient to fully indoctrinate workers, and readers/viewers, long before they ever rise to a position of some authority.

"Resistance is Futile. Assimilate at CNN.Com"

The absence of the well respected and highly dynamic news conglomerate "Al Jazeera" is a good example of the intellectual isolationism so prevalent in American Media culture. AlJazeera is a threat to the cast iron grip that the major "news" outlets currently hold on the American public and hence it is a threat to the corporations that own these outlets. It would bring a vastly diverse world view to the people of the United States which could seriously threaten contemporary concepts regarding the place a middle American should inhabit intellectually; in front of their television, actively overdosing on mind numbing reality TV. In addition to that, if Americans readily had access to clear and up to date information about the happenings in the Middle East and Africa and not the murky and obtuse reports received via contemporary "news" outlets, they might make their requests to end unnecessary and illegal wars of aggression abroad considerably more forceful.

Media in America is about profit and social control, not about relevance or honesty.

- Politicians

The Average American, god bless them, generally thinks that politicians are actually working for the betterment of America as a whole. Few things could be further from the truth.

Again the focus turns back to the dissection of the institution. First, and a singular point, is that the United States government at the upper echelons or the levels where decisions are made, both foreign and domestic, are filled almost without exception by members of the "American Elite".

What makes them so "Elite"?

Thirteen U.S. Presidents attended Ivy League schools.

Forty-two sitting U.S. Senators received some sort of degree from Ivy League schools.

Many others have studied at prestigious schools such as Cambridge, Oxford, Georgetown Law and Stanford Law. It is clear that the educations these men and women in power are receiving are of an Elitist nature. Understanding that the Intellectual culture of modern America is largely one of "naiveté and self-righteousness", further enhanced and rationalized by the Intelligentsia and it's elitist allegiances, than it is not difficult to extrapolate that these institutions are indoctrinating our past, current and future leaders not with the thoughts, desires, hopes and fears of the vast majority of American society, but with a very small package of priorities treasured by those at the top of the Social, Economic and political ladder (i.e. “The Ruling Elite”).

The fiscal position of America's elected representatives is also illuminating.

According to a CRP analysis the median house hold income in the United States is 46,000 dollars. In 2009, the median reportable worth of sitting US senators was 1.79 million dollars.

That's quite a gap.

When these officials and power holders design policy and implement change, they will do it as they always have over and over again across history: Policy will benefit the architects.

Again, remember the rule of any institution; if a component within that institution is unwillingly or unable to comply and support the function that is necessary it is removed. Politically this is no different. This was stated candidly by Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations when he spoke of his support of the 2003 Iraq war:

My initial support for the war was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility.

Furthermore, the documentation regarding the "incredible sequence of lies" that the government has perpetuated needs its own post, but the following quote, by Irving Cyrstal a founding father of the neoconservative movement, makes the rulings elite's position regarding lying to the public sufficiently clear.

There are different kinds of Truth for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths appropriate for students; truths appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It just doesn't work.

One can only assume that once again, the policies here will benefit the architects, and the ones deciding which truth everyone is allowed will wildly reap rewards from such an Orwellian construct.

"Jersey shore IS your truth little man. Rent the whole season and forget your sorrows."

Other honorable mentions of institutions that are thought to perform functions they simply do not are:

-The Police

-Institutes of higher learning

-The Military

-The CIA and the whole alphabet soup of groups, clubs and organizations all called TOP SECRET

The list can go on and on.

In this time of change and shadow, the burden of truth has to be lifted out of the hands of indoctrinated and institutionalized members of the Elite and Intelligentsia and must be taken up by the rest of us.

It is no easy task to do, but do we have a choice?

"History is written by the conquerors; only if the forgotten and unheard masses remain so."

Read more by Eric on his blog Gaijinass.