The Frog Experiment
 

Well, as any family get-together goes over the holidays, several political discussions came to pass. Several of them were big and rowdy, a couple more discreet and well-pointed. Anyway, the one which I'd like to bring your attention to is a certain small one between my aunt and myself. My aunt is conservative/independant, while I am liberal/independant, and we both have a great deal of respect for the other so our discussions are always relevant to the point and we never press too far (we both know that sometimes you're just preaching to the choir or talking to yourself).

Basically the argument was over the Patriot Act and the reductions of civil liberties. I stated that any reduction of liberty was a bad thing, and she stated that it wasn't necessarily bad if it could be used against our enemies. At length, it was her statement, "well, if you don't do anything criminal, than you don't have anything to fear, do you?" that got me. Oh, I immediately came back with all the Orwellian misgivings about, "what if someone starts using the information gained for their own ends, etc." and she said that the government had failsafes so that would never happen, etc. But it was that statement about only criminals having to fear the new private information laws that had me deep in thought for the next few days.

I used to be a criminal (ie, used to smoke the pot, drink underage, etc.), and had an appropriate amount of respect (fear) of authority... I since have become clean, but was it my residual fear of authority that made me so uncomfortable with allowing the government an unreserved eye into my life?

Then I was over at a friend's house recently and his daughter was watching some science show on TV and they had the Frog Experiment on and something clicked.

For those of you unfamiliar with the frog experiement, it goes something like this: Put a frog in a pot of boiling water, frog jumps out, put a frog in a cool pot of water and slowly warm it up to boiling, the frog will boil to death.

I don't think it's my previous criminal background giving me these misgivings, rather I think I (like many others) am just a sensitive frog, and I don't like my water getting ANY warmer at all.

Anyway, your thoughts: Is the reduction of civil liberty like the frog experiment, or is it a necessity that will only happen now, and will protect and save many lives?


MB

I have the same feeling but with socialist taxes.

Go figure eh?

I agree with the Frog experiment.
But, the failsafes, aren't that failsafe. The Patriot Act has already been abused.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in564189.shtml

Government report documenting patriot act abuses
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/po...c62c48&ei=5070
http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_2638.shtml

Etc.

Hit her with this quote

I can't believe they show people boiling frogs on television for children.

We wrestled in my moms living room, it's much more efficient/fun/objective then debate is. Course, we're all conservatives or non-political so we were wrestling just because.

My eldest brother brought up the point that he punched me in the kidney, to which I pointed out that I had him in a headlock on the floor. All in all, I'd say we got more done in 10 minutes then congress did all year.

Just as an addendum, http://www.weeklystandard.com/conten...2/935whnpm.asp

Quick quotes as summary:

Abuse of the Patriot Act will happen. Abuse of any law happens. It does not mean that thus, we cannot have said law because of the possibility of abuse. That is why corrective safeguards are in place. Sadly, there are a great deal (1,073 - 34, at least) of uninformed people out there who would rather blanketly blame the Patriot Act rather than actually read it and think for themselves.

By the way, m0ntyblack, one of the better retorts I have heard to , "If you didn't do anything wrong, what are you afraid of?" is "Why don't you trust me?"

-- Alvin

The reduction of civil liberty is very much like the frog experiment. For me the issue is ethical, not situational (which rules out objections like whether it's only temporary, or whether there are already safeguards in place). The government exists to serve the people, not vice versa. It shouldn't be given a questionable amount of power and then be trusted not to abuse it unless "necessary" to combat terrorism... that's such a vague and arbitrary line to draw.

Take the part of the Patriot Act that deals with online communication. (Sec. 217, Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications, http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html .) If I'm understanding it correctly, the government can legally intercept any online communication if a) the owner of the computer consents, and b) the user does not have a contractual agreement with the owner to be using the computer. Note the government does *not* need to get objective judicial oversight, which is not the case with similar laws in the past. Also note that if the information is never used in a prosecution, the user never even finds out they were being tapped, let alone has the chance to contest it in court.

Now this is something I'm not comfortable with even though my email and IM conversations wouldn't have evidence I've broken any laws. The Constitution does in fact include the right to privacy. (A good article naming some court cases where it's come up: http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/sep/20/...mentary1-1.htm .) If we're lucky, there'll be enough opposition to things like the Patriot Act that they'll never go very far. But the fact is that big changes come in degrees, and there've been countries that went in some pretty awful directions starting with small steps like this one. So it's a good idea to watch what you're really agreeing to.

Besides the documentation of Patriot Act abuse described above, there's another fundamental flaw with your aunt's logic.

She believes it is all right to curtail the freedom of criminals.

How does one determine who is a "criminal" or a "terrorist" for whom the rules do not apply?

In the past, when innocence was presumed until guilt was proved, a court of law would apply the "criminal" label.

Today, the Executive Branch does this without a trial and without giving the accused a chance to make a fair defense of their case.

So someone like Jose Padilla can be held indefinitely because he is a "terrorist," and because he is a "terrorist" he does not have the right to a trial.

Ask your aunt how she would like to be erroneously designated a "terrorist" and then denied the chance to disprove those charges because of that label.

What 217 means is that if I believe someone hacked my computer, I have the ability to request law enforcement to monitor my computer, as long as 1) I own the computer, and 2) the "user" isn't legally allowed to be using my computer. If I don't consent, the government can do nothing. Before, even with my consent the government was not allowed to assist.

From http://www.nunes.house.gov/PatriotAct.htm

Regarding reading your e-mail/IM,

217 is relevant only to the owner of the computer. If the government wanted to read your e-mail, for example, by "wire-tapping" your computer (and not the computers belonging to people you e-mail), this falls under section 216, which does require judicial consent. As an example, let us say I am a hacker and I have broken into your system. 217 allows you to ask the government to investigate your computer, and your computer only. If you don't ask, they can't do anything. In order for the government to investigate my computer (without my consent), they would have to use 216.

However, under 216 the government can only read the headers -- they are prohibited from reading the content. You can imagine it like requesting a suspect's phone records from the phone company -- you can tell who he called, but not what he said. Doesn't seem so unreasonable, now, does it? Prior to the Patriot Act, the government could not touch e-mail in any way. This resolves that loophole (and is why it has no sunset provision).

-- Alvin