"Three things I learned from the Snowden files" (Freedom or Privacy)--Jay Rosen

[KoKo]

Three things I learned from the Snowden files
Jay Rosen- PRESS THINK--Dec. 29
Dec. 29

http://pressthink.org/2013/12/three-things-i-learned-from-the-snowden-files/

Before the year ends, I wanted to capture a few points that stand out for me about what is unquestionably the biggest news story of 2013.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing…

The moment I read that — it’s in Glenn Greenwald’s first report from the Snowden files on June 5th — I started following, closely, the story of the surveillance state’s unveiling by Edward Snowden and the journalists who received the documents he took.

I also wrote about it: a lot. I attended Eben Moglen’s lecture series, Snowden and the future. I watched countless television segments about the revelations. Over Thanksgiving, I talked to my brother, a computer engineer, about the NSA and encryption. And of course I have had hundreds of conversations with journalists, colleagues and friends about what is without question the biggest story of 2013.

Before the year ends, I wanted to capture a few points that stand out for me from all that.

1. It’s not “privacy” but freedom. In news coverage of the Snowden files you frequently see this shorthand: [b“privacy advocates say…”

From an AP story:

Feinstein’s committee produced a bill last week that she says increases congressional oversight and limits some NSA powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Privacy advocates say the measure codifies the agency’s rights to scoop up millions of American’s telephone records.

So you have defenders of the NSA on one side, and this creature called “privacy advocates” on the other. But at stake is not just privacy. It’s freedom.

This point was made by British philosopher Quentin Skinner in a July interview on opendemocracy.net:

The mere fact of there being surveillance takes away liberty. The response of those who are worried about surveillance has so far been too much couched, it seems to me, in terms of the violation of the right to privacy. Of course it’s true that my privacy has been violated if someone is reading my emails without my knowledge. But my point is that my liberty is also being violated, and not merely by the fact that someone is reading my emails but also by the fact that someone has the power to do so should they choose. We have to insist that this in itself takes away liberty because it leaves us at the mercy of arbitrary power. It’s no use those who have possession of this power promising that they won’t necessarily use it, or will use it only for the common good. What is offensive to liberty is the very existence of such arbitrary power.

The point holds for collecting phone records. Even if no one in the government reviews whom I’ve called or texted, my liberty is violated because “someone has the power to do so should they choose.” Thus: It’s not privacy; it’s freedom. But “freedom advocates” would be an awkward construction in a news story.

The Rest of Rosen's Article is a Good Read and the COMMENTS on his article at the Link...are worth a look for a good discussion. This particular comment was so interesting that I thought I'd add it here:

---------------
Scuzza Man (@ScuzzaMan)
December 31, 2013 at 4:00 am

You cannot have freedom without privacy. Nor, if you are not free, can privacy have any meaning since, by definition it is always contingent on the whim of your masters.

It is not a case of “It’s not privacy, it’s freedom!” – although, as others have noted, the point about freedom needs to be made, and I am very glad to see it made.

Privacy is a necessary aspect of freedom; the freedom to choose to be alone, to have a life separate from communal oversight, to explore our own *private* sense of what it means to be an individual.

I also dispute the author’s statement that the USA has not become a totalitarian state. Which features of such a state are missing?

Americans have no privacy and, increasingly, no right to privacy.

Americans require their government’s permission to leave and enter their own country, and can be denied this permission on an unaudited whim of a faceless bureaucrat, with no recourse.

Americans can be tasered or shot to death in the street for failing to show sufficient deference to police officers.

Americans can be tortured, imprisoned indefinitely without charge, and killed, on a secret executive whim: again, all the above without recourse to a court, to any legal representation, to public or family notification, and most significantly, with complete impunity for the people who carry out these criminal assaults on your liberty.

What the author SEEMS to mean is that he doesn’t yet fear this will happen to him, or perhaps that these things are not yet pervasive enough to compel such a conclusion?

But these are questions only of degree: the character of this beast has been made manifestly and incontrovertibly plain. That this is a totalitarian state is beyond question.

The only real question remaining for Americans to answer is: how many of you will you let it kill before you stop supporting it?

MORE AT:

http://pressthink.org/2013/12/three-things-i-learned-from-the-snowden-files/

[russ1943]

1. K & R

"Article is a Good Read........... good discussion.................. interesting"
All understatements.