Patterico's Pontifications

5/15/2006

Our Nazi Federal Government

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:01 am



I have all these people bugging me to comment about what an outrageous invasion of privacy it is for the federal government to potentially have records of everyone I call. (Not that they can actually analyze such information, of course. Americans make hundreds of millions of calls a day — more than a gazillion dedicated privacy-invading government agents could ever make heads or tails of. But that’s not the point. It’s the principle of the thing — the idea that the government could have access to such private data about its own citizens.)

Well, obviously, this is a complete outrage. Next thing you know, the government will require me to tell it: what I do for a living; exactly how much I make; where I live; what stocks I buy and sell, and for how much; what I pay in property taxes; and how much profit I make on my investments. If we just sit still like sheep, we’ll end up having to disclose our birthdates — and, God help us, even our Social Security numbers.

If that ever comes to pass, you’ll know that we are truly living in the reincarnation of Nazi Germany.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go do my taxes.

P.S. After writing this post, I realized that it sounded familiar. There are no new ideas under the sun, and it appears Stuart Buck had this one first.

P.P.S. I guess we’re all thrilled for the phone companies to have this data and share it with each other — just not with a federal government trying to prevent terrorist attacks. That’s going too far!

45 Responses to “Our Nazi Federal Government”

  1. I can go one better, Patterico.

    I recently received from the U.S. Department of Commerce a brochure entitled “The American Community Survey” that I’m supposed to fill out and return. A note I received a few days earlier advised me that my “response is required by law.” Among the items the Commerce Department wants to know in this 24-page survey are the names, ages, jobs, employers, ethnicities, education levels, total income, sources of income of everyone in my household, as well as the amounts of my mortgage payment, utility bills, water and sewer bills, property taxes, and insurance. Much more is requested, but the list above will give you an idea of just how inquisitive the Commerce Department is.

    This is in addition to the 1040 I recently filed with the IRS, which tells the government, among other things, how much I make, whom I work for, what I have invested in, from whom I have borrowed money, and my bank account numbers.

    I submit that the acquisition and retention by the government of the information requested via the income tax and the American Community Survey represent a far greater intrusion into my life and privacy than my phone number in a database being used to identify terrorist suspects — if for no other reason than the fact that the IRS has investigative and enforcement power and the NSA does not.

    Diffus (ead439)

  2. I don’t think the Feds will be interested in my phone calls to my mom, but phone calls of certain others would be very interesting to Bush. A number of reporters have adversarial relationships with the Bush administration. Wouldn’t Bush like to know who’s leaking to them and what they’re going to write about? Of course, it would be wrong for him to do that, so he won’t, right?

    dchamil (9ca722)

  3. i found this morning’s offering to be somewhat naive. the hazard, of course, is not a “gazillion dedicated privacy-invading government agents”, the hazard is computers running data mining software. the hazard is that ten years ago, unbeknownst to you, your roommate telephoned somebody that, unbeknownst to him, was in a relationship with a suspected al-qaeda functionary, and now they won’t let you fly on commercial aircraft. the hazard is that four months ago, somebody placed a call from your home to a women’s health facility, and the data leaked to the local christian busybodies who are now at your door querying if your teenage daughter recently killed her baby.
    you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own bill of rights, federal statutes and case interpretation. the fourth amendment still prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, requires warrants on probable cause, and an act of congress set up the fisa court and still requires secret, national security-type investigations to be cleared with it. the only “law” in opposition to the foregoing is g.w. bush’s naked presidential fiat.
    real conservatives like myself believe in minimum government power and maximum personal liberty. we also adhere to the values enshrined in our bill of rights. anything else isn’t real conservatism.

    assistant devil's advocate (0f0275)

  4. Wouldn’t Bush like to know who’s leaking to them and what they’re going to write about? Of course, it would be wrong for him to do that, so he won’t, right?

    Thankfully it was people like you who held the Clintons responsible for illegally obtaining FBI files and “suggesting” IRS audits of their political opponents. Oh, wait. That’s right. That didn’t happen. When the abuses you’re worried about in this case actually happened, they were met with silence or, at best, weak protests.

    So, yeah, the potential for abuse is there, but there’s no evidence that the abuse has happened. If that evidence turns up, then we can talk.

    Robert Crawford (9eef80)

  5. the hazard is that ten years ago, unbeknownst to you, your roommate telephoned somebody that, unbeknownst to him, was in a relationship with a suspected al-qaeda functionary, and now they won’t let you fly on commercial aircraft. the hazard is that four months ago, somebody placed a call from your home to a women’s health facility, and the data leaked to the local christian busybodies who are now at your door querying if your teenage daughter recently killed her baby.

    Wow. Those are some pretty shocking events. Could you provide links to the reports about them?

    Robert Crawford (9eef80)

  6. OK, given the information we’re required to provide on our state and federal tax returns, the recent collecting of phone numbers is merely another drop in the information bucket. That it’s done to identify terrorists and their enablers makes it a legal and necessary precaution to help protect against another terrorist attack.

    Which leads to obvious conclusions: Those concerned about privacy should embrace efforts to abandon the current tax system and encourage a national sales tax. Bingo, no need to give the Feds all that private info. Just pay as you go at the check out stand.

    If you’re involved in terrorism you might want to consider breeding carrier pigeons.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  7. Clinton gets a pass on the FBI files – it was an accident or some such thing. Sandy Berger stealing classified documents? Another accident.

    Little known fact: be executive fiat Clinton changed defendant’s plea options from guilty-not guilty to guilty-not guilty-it was an accident.

    Sweetie (f6fb72)

  8. the hazard is that ten years ago, unbeknownst to you, your roommate telephoned somebody that, unbeknownst to him, was in a relationship with a suspected al-qaeda functionary, and now they won’t let you fly on commercial aircraft. the hazard is that four months ago

    Gasp! I have told my roommate (my wife) not to make any phone calls from now on because 10 years from now . . . we won’t be able to fly on a commercial airliner!

    Stu707 (18fdc8)

  9. As I recall, one can purchase a scanner at Radio Shack for next to nothing and actually listen to conversations involving cell phones. I also note stories these days that highlight cell phone records that help locate individuals based on proximity to cell towers. Planes and trains have black boxes that record activity to be used in the event of an accident, monitoring devices at intersections monitor activity there, private property owners monitor their property for graffiti/intruders, credit agencies,and the list goes on.

    Where’s the beef?

    vet66 (9f37aa)

  10. Can I ask what “The reasonable expectation” for privacy is on a phone call? Especially considering we jettison our voices into the ether where anyone can catch them with radio monitors?
    Unreasonable search and seizure is designed to protect those areas I can reasonably expect to keep and stay private.
    I personally don’t have any expectation of privacy on a phonecall. If I require a private communication I expect that a physical correspondence or a face to face conversation take place.
    The availablity of phones, email and IM are for ease of communication but they never guaranteed complete privacy.
    Talk about naive!

    paul from fl (001f65)

  11. According to the Supreme Court, Smith v Maryland, there is no invasion of privacy with pen registers. Nor (US v Miller) is there any privacy issue when a 3rd party, who we’ve let keep records for us, gives them to the government.

    What amazes me is that the folks who’ve supported IRS bulk subpoenas of bank and credit card records over the years, as necessary to tax collection, are the same folks who seem so upset with the NSA.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  12. This NSA deal’s got the conservative Scarborough concerned:
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/12.html#a8261.

    And Newt: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/12.html#a8260.

    Are these two guys going to be added to your list of “usual suspects” now?

    Personally, what bothers me the most about this is that the Executive Branch is policing the Executive Branch. Checks and balances? We don’t need no stinkin’ checks and balances – apparently. Not a problem you say? Then wait ‘till a democrat is elected President and I think most of you will have plenty to say about it.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  13. Nazi’s are a template for conservative blogger VoxDay:

    [Bush] lied when he said: “Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it’s just not going to work.”

    Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50198

    Being fair and balanced, we should let ’em in because they are CHEAP labor. Not if they stay, they vote Democrat and they have socialist opinions.

    steve (c81f68)

  14. Not to mention that if you’re lucky enough to be a New Yorker, you can get a break on your property taxes through the STAR program if you are willing to give the Town Clerk a copy of your tax return.

    And these blue staters worry about privacy? HAHAHAHA

    Oops, I take that back. They did get that RINO Pataki to promise not to sell NY drivers license rolls anymore. Che.

    Dusty (af3a10)

  15. The courts have already ruled that no one has an expectation of privacy when making a phone call. It travels over a public system. How private do you think your calls are???

    JD (232cea)

  16. Oops, forgot to mention also that it wasn’t the content of the calls but the pin #’s they were collecting (phone numbers). If you want complete privacy when it comes to using a public system, get some tin-cans and a long string.

    JD (232cea)

  17. Why do so many people want the government to regulate virtally everything and take money from those who have earned it and give it to thosew ho have not, but they object to it doing the one thing that is its primary function — ensuring the security of the lives and property of its citizens?

    diffus (eb6eae)

  18. Diffus – I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the people who object to the NSA program believe that it isn’t necessary to ensuring the security of the lives and property of its citizens.

    Fundamentally, from the liberal perspective, the question can be cast as this: “why do you believe that keeping records of who I talk to on the phone is necessary for national security?”

    Doesn’t the claim that it does carry with it the implication that the government believes me to be doing something which might endanger national security?

    And isn’t that implication somewhat offensive?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  19. In the days of “Ma Bell” (prior to 1984)during three 30 day periods per year a record of every phone connection that originated or terminated in the US was saved in a data base. This data came from the records that the phone companies needed to bill their customers. The data base was primarily used to calculate the “Division of Revenue” payouts from the Bell system to the Independent companies. It also was used to help design the future network. Most billing records are now kept in centrally located computers and can be kept 365 days a year.

    This information is automatically gathered in every switch in the US. Keep in mind that even if you use the internet for phone calls, any call the originates or terminates on a regular telephone or cell phone must inter the telephone network somewhere, at which point it is recorded.

    While these records were not public information they were used by many people within the industry and GOVERNMENTAL Regulators. The step to providing this info to an Intellegent agency is almost a so what.

    Stan Oswald (e4b937)

  20. OMIGAWD…Federal agents are stealing my privacy EVERY DAY…. hundreds of agents… reading the addresses on the envelopes of the mail I drop off at the Post Office

    Oh…the humanity! the humanity!

    Darleen (81f712)

  21. Doesn’t the claim that it does carry with it the implication that the government believes me to be doing something which might endanger national security?

    And isn’t that implication somewhat offensive?

    The TSA assumes everyone trying to get onto an airplane is potentially a danger to that airplane.

    As a matter of fact, I do find that offensive.

    But if I’m talking on the phone to al Qaeda operatives, the NSA at least has a reason to be monitoring me.

    McGehee (5664e1)

  22. Are these two guys [Scarborough and Gingrich] going to be added to your list of “usual suspects” now?

    In Gingrich’s case the “indefensible” is the the Administration’s explanation of the program. He clearly favors the program itself.

    Personally, what bothers me the most about this is that the Executive Branch is policing the Executive Branch. Checks and balances? We don’t need no stinkin’ checks and balances – apparently. Not a problem you say? Then wait ‘till a democrat is elected President and I think most of you will have plenty to say about it.

    Legislative oversight is more than appropriate for this program. Not only to protect civil liberties but to check on the effectiveness of the NSA’s efforts.

    We already have seen a Democratic Administration’s deep concern for the privacy rights of Americans. Remember the White House collection of FBI files during the Clinton Administration?

    Stu707 (18fdc8)

  23. Aphrael, not knowing any more than I do, I suspect that the answer to your questions is, “Because we believe that analyzing the calling patterns contained in telephone billing records could lead us to people who are trying to kill you and keep them from doing so.”

    In an earlier post, I did not directly state this, but I will do so now: Among all the information the government collects about me, much of which i must supply under penalty of fines and imprisonment, having my phone number in a data base used to help find terrorists is among the least intrusive.

    The NSA can’t arrest me. The IRS can. And I strongly suspect, though I’m not a lawyer, that any information useful in a criminal investigation obtained under an NSA program would be inadmissible in a court.

    diffus (eb6eae)

  24. I thought only the leftie’s were dense, but from the post on here, and around the blog world, anyone with an education above high school is an idiot, brainwashed by the college professors (aka communist). Where have you people been, hiding under a rock? The government has always had this information, the NSA just assembled it in one place. As for the, ‘i’m not a lawyer’ crowd but the can’t use in to prosocute me. Bad news, as soon as the make a link they obtain a warrent to ‘really tap’ your phone. Up until then it’s just this number called that number so many times. They have the terrorists phone number’s so go ahead and call you terrorist friends. Then they can and will get a warrent, arrest you and use the information in court. I’m not a lawyer either but i do have a hilbilly education, and have traveled around the world a few times.

    Scrapiron (71415b)

  25. Patterico shows….

    ….how silly and pathetically hypocritical the faux outrage of the left is over the NSA phone records dustup.Well, obviously, this is a complet…

    Media Lies (f03b36)

  26. vet66, if you buy a scanner today you wont be able to pick up cell calls. No scanners made today have the ability to pick up the cell signal in the 900 Mhz range. The early ones did have that capability, witness the Gingrich call that was given to McDimwit from Washington.

    Mike H. (22f063)

  27. I amend my previous post tho read: And I strongly suspect, though I’m not a lawyer, that any information useful in a criminal investigation obtained under an NSA program would be inadmissible in a court proceeding involving anything not related to charges involving participation in, or aiding and abetting, terrorist activities.”

    In plain English, what I’m trying to say is that anything picked up by the NSA can’t be used to nail me for carjacking, kidnapping, tax evasion, racketeering, etc.

    diffus (eb6eae)

  28. Republican privacy and Democrat privacy

    If the leftists had their way, the government would also have all your private medical records and know all the guns that you own. Similarly, there are many other privacy-invading programs and proposals that if not quite leftists, are only opposed by…

    Doc Rampage (59ce3a)

  29. You know …

    I’m inclined to come around to Psyberian’s and aphrael’s way of thinking after the Chief Executive’s speech on immigration tonight. It does seem that he will only enforce he likes.

    nk (8214ee)

  30. Shoot. It should read “enforce laws he likes”.

    nk (8214ee)

  31. As I said, cold calls or terrorism? You decide what’s worse.

    Seixon (3237b2)

  32. Here’s a fitting quote from Josh Marshall on this Orwellian controversy:

    Once you set aside the law as your guide for action and view the president’s will as a source of legitimacy in itself, then everything becomes possible and justifiable.
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008458.php

    Scary.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  33. Nazis suck!

    Wesson (c20d28)

  34. Great use of the Marshall quote, Psyberian . . . or it would be, if anything about the NSA data collection actually violated a law. You managed to get in a hyperbolic invocation of Orwell, also, as if gathering pen register type info amounts to Big Brother Surveillance. As frustrating as it may be, there’s no law against protecting-national-security-while-Republican.

    What’s scary is what the left’s emphasis demonstrates: There is no information gathering by the government that is considered overly intrusive if the purpose is to maintain the welfare state and keep citizens sheep-like in their dependence on the collective control of other people’s money, but if the purpose is to provide for the national defense, something that is actually contemplated by the constitution, then all information gathering is suspect. Somehow, I don’t think that even a federalist like John Marshall would have agreed with that view of the government’s role. Karl Marx would have approved, though.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  35. Tnugent, Glenn Greenwald is an attorney who believes that what NSA has been doing is blatantly illegal. Also, one of the FISA court judges resigned in protest after hearing about the willy-nilly spying. After all, wasn’t his job there at the FISA court completely superfluous? Being Republican or Democrat has nothing to do with it. If you defend what Bush has been up to, isn’t the FISA court just silly? I believe it was put there for a purpose – no search (or seizure) without a warrant. What’s next, putting government video cameras in our homes? Where do you draw the line?

    My understanding is that this NSA scheme has been going on for about five years – since a few months or so after 9/11. How many terrorists have been caught by the government spying on us this way anyway?

    As for the government knowing how much money we make – how else can the government collect income tax? The honor system? Sure… I make um, $1,000 a year. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  36. Psyberian-

    How do you know who or what they’ve caught? Collecting pin numbers isn’t spying. I can dig through your trash and get your phone bill and there is nothing illegal about that.
    They aren’t listening to the content of the calls. And what if they take that information and use it to obtain a warrant? They are obviously looking for certain pins and certain pins only. What good is a list of millions of pins if they don’t have a target? A series of phone calls to a questionable person cannot be considered an accident.

    JD (232cea)

  37. Psyberian, you’re making my argument for me with remarks like that.

    If you look hard enough, you can find a lawyer — some lawyer, somewhere — who’ll take just about any position on any issue. That doesn’t improve an unreasonable position, such as the one you describe, it just makes it an unreasonable position taken by a lawyer. Ditto for unreasonable positions taken by partisan and opportunistic FISA judges.

    For the most part, tax collection is an honor system. Enforcement resources don’t come close to permitting anything else. But the point is that the information required by the IRS goes way beyond what would be required to administer any tax system whose primary goal is revenue collection (as opposed to than maximizing earnings of tax professionals). In light of what the IRS requires, it’s laughable to complain about the government collecting phone numbers for purposes of security.

    Where to draw the line? Well, at the border, to start. If a communication crosses the border, or involves a foreign national, as is the case regarding the mis-named “domestic” surveillance that was the subject of the earlier supposed “controversy,” the president doesn’t need to ask a judge for permission if he monitors it for the purpose of national security. Congressional oversight (of which there is and has been plenty for that program) provides all the checks and balances necessary. That program only became an issue because of partisan opportunism — not because of anyone’s interest in preserving constitutionally protected privacy. Pen register information isn’t even close to the line — there’s no expectation of privacy in the phone numbers that one dials.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  38. The problem is they are not using these numbers and taps and investigations to stop terrorism..they are using them to find out who is leaking information about their crimes to the press..

    charlie (e16458)

  39. I can dig through your trash and get your phone bill and there is nothing illegal about that. – JR

    But I don’t throw out my phone bills – I file them. Ditto for my other bills. If gong through someone’s trash to find out personal information about them without their consent is legal in all circumstances, then it should be illegal – it isn’t anyone’s business what I throw away.

    They aren’t listening to the content of the calls. – JR

    They’ve been lying to us all along and you’re going to believe them when they tell you that? OK, but not me – I don’t know if they’re telling the truth or not. Why are they lying in the first place?

    If you look hard enough, you can find a lawyer — some lawyer, somewhere — who’ll take just about any position on any issue. – TNugent

    That may be true, but being unable to find an attorney to support a position says a lot, doesn’t it? Since I’m not an attorney, I feel obligated to at least show that one lawyer agrees with my position – what else can I do other than finding a lot of them supporting my position? (BTW, what are a bunch of lawyers called anyway – a gaggle maybe? A shiver? ) In the case of Greenwald, he has gone into a lot of detail explaining why he believes that it is illegal too.

    For the most part, tax collection is an honor system. – TNugent

    For people with normal jobs, the employer sends a form to the IRS stating what you make. If you lie about it, they will eventually catch you. That’s hardly an honor system. I know someone who used to work at the IRS – they have computers that compare the numbers. It may take them a year or two, but they usually catch on to that Ponzi scheme.

    If there has been congressional oversight on this, it doesn’t explain why some republicans are so hot about it. A few select people in congress were informed with only sketchy details of it, but that’s not really oversight.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  40. Psyberian..good post,…wonder what ever happened to Conservatives who were alarmed at the growth of the Chief Executive’s power? Now anything goes as long as Bush says its in the national interest to fight terror. Guess some now prefer a government of men and not of laws..

    charlie (e16458)

  41. I’m hardly a wild-eyed Bush hater. I disagree with him more and more. But I am not a “Bush Lied, People Died” kind of person.

    I’m worried about the “slippery slope” aspects of this. I know its tecnically a logical fallacy, but if you look at every government program in existence, it always started out small then balooned into insanity. Take the Income Tax, the Social Security Number and the United Nations as examples.

    A couple of things have me seriously concerned about this:

    1. The apologists’ continual assertions that there is “no personal information” passed. That’s BS. I can sling some code in about 20 minutes to attach a phone # to personal information. So technically they’re correct, but its dissembling to make it sound like that information cannot be easily obtained.

    2. No one yet has explained to me HOW you can use broad calling patterns to determine terrorist activity. You might as well say “Here’s every call in the US yesterday. Find me everyone who hates chocolate ice cream.” The information simply is not in the data to make the associations they claim they’re making.

    3. If they’re lying about what they do with the data (and logic dictates they are), then what exactly ARE they doing with it?

    4. Because they already have WAY too much personal information on me, does not make further erosion to my right to privacy any more acceptable. Quite the opposite.

    I often wonder what it will take to get some people up in arms. Government cameras in every bedroom?

    Dark Lord Xenu (af8a25)

  42. Is it still a crime to murder IRS agents?

    American Citizen (ea06b5)

  43. […] approve this unearthly news at https://patterico.com/2006/05/15/our-nazi-federal-government about […] virgin phone […]

    virgin-phone-card.1phonecard (ebbf40)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1038 secs.