The Dubious Protection of Judges

Another peculiar element to the government data mining scandal is the apparent public acceptance of the pretence that a mere judge's approval is all it takes to legitimize investigators seizing a citizen's personal data accounts. Due process doesn't just involve judges' discretion, but openness about the criteria for probable cause.

Judges are the biggest pack of nobody's with trumped up power and authority the world has ever seen. Backed by a judge doesn't mean anything in the world of warrants. Elected or not, there is no actual difference between a judge granting a warrant to search your personal records and some hired government worker in a white shirt deciding to do it on his own except that they have to go to one extra step, granting it the appearance of legitimacy. The American government experiment has done nothing if not conclude that public election never increases likelihood of an official working for public interests or of behaving honorably. Decisions of whose privacy gets violated and how severely may as well be kept in house, because the extra step does nothing to make me feel better or safer.

We needed to have standards for probable cause to search and to have reviewable case decisions with consequences for judges who violate set standards. We can never ensure that officials will do their jobs fairly and uphold people's rights, but it helps to have consequences for not doing so, and for those who seek to go around them or manipulate  or remove laws  enacted for our protection.

Saying No: protecting personal privacy from government abuse

In the wake of scandal, news outlets are awaiting statements as the administration scrambles to explain the need for violating personal privacy in the collection of personal data from Verizon and online services. But in truth we need no explanation. we caught them doing exactly what we should suspect them to do, and now we should expect them to give us a BS response. Why force them to BS us?

Knowledge is power and without power, governments are ineffective. Their job is to continually reach for it, so it is to be expected for them to violate public privacy and reach for as much power as possible. It is up to the public to protect its own interests; in other words, it is up to private citizens to say no. Any other arrangement encourages the public to complacency.

To avoid complacency, we are wise to reject any explanations the administration provides. if we listen, we are communicating that there is an explanation possible, that some excuse might be sufficient, and it gives them the possibility of coming up with one. It means that we are just looking for the excuse to settle back down and let government do what it wants. 

It is up to us to put pressure on our officials to enforce the Bill of Rights and protect the public from unconstitutional search and seizure, including personal information. It is not the government's responsibility to prevent government from becoming too large and powerful and overreaching its authority; it is the citizens' responsibility. Expecting government to behave itself on its own is encouraging them to misbehave and avoiding our own responsibilities.

It is important for us to take an active roll in communicating with our legislators. It is just as important to communicate with news outlets who report on government activities, as they are the ones who determine whether the government gets away with their abuses. Let them know what we expect, that we are not looking for excuses, that we are taking an active role and looking for solutions.