Final results of the security v. freedom poll

Over a period of about one month, 11 votes were cast (see background). Nine voted that freedom was overall more important than security; two voted that security took priority over freedom.



One reason I suppose the vote count was so low was because of some technical errors. The poll usually didn't work when I tested it on several computers. I think Blogger (i.e. Google) still has some work to do on their Polls add-on. Technical problems and low voter turnout aside, this poll outcome illustrates that the majority of In Perspective readers — at least those who were able to get the poll to work and vote — favor freedom over security, a classic liberal mark. I will find a more functional, non-buggy polling service that works for everyone to use for future polls.

Smile! You're on satellite camera

The United States is moving up in the world in terms of state surveillance...

The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.

A program approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security will allow broader domestic use of secret overhead imagery beginning as early as this fall, with the expectation that state and local law enforcement officials will eventually be able to tap into technology once largely restricted to foreign surveillance.

Administration officials say the program will give domestic security and emergency preparedness agencies new capabilities in dealing with a range of threats, from illegal immigration and terrorism to hurricanes and forest fires. But the program, described yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, quickly provoked opposition from civil liberties advocates, who said the government is crossing a well-established line against the use of military assets in domestic law enforcement.

Does its implications against freedom cancel out the good it does for security (see security v. freedom); or is there nothing to worry about? And what is up with the WSJ getting all these major political news scoops?

Although the federal government has long permitted the use of spy-satellite imagery for certain scientific functions -- such as creating topographic maps or monitoring volcanic activity -- the administration's decision would provide domestic authorities with unprecedented access to high-resolution, real-time satellite photos.
...
Oversight of the department's use of the overhead imagery data would come from officials in the Department of Homeland Security and from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and would consist of reviews by agency inspectors general, lawyers and privacy officers.

No warrants are needed for this kind of spying, and yet it is my personal view that the NSA wiretapping program is probably a larger infringement on civil liberties. However, both these spy programs can be easily abused for political motives because the oversight comes from those within the Bush administration. Many of the people overlooking these spy programs, such as officials in the DHS and DoJ, have already proven themselves to be political appointees, cronies, incompetent yes-men, and by no means objective like they should be. And all they ever seem to want is more power to spy on Americans.

I think it is a good idea to update America's satellite imaging system, just as I believe a FISA for the 21st century was a good goal, but the lack of oversight is alarming for both of these surveillance programs. At least the NSA program will have audits and this new spy program will be reviewed by a number of people who hopefully will prevent abuse of this important and slightly worrying technology. Still, it is up to the courts, Congress, and, ultimately, the people to keep the executive in check, and that includes its more sensitive programs.

Security v. freedom

This month's poll (Aug 11 to Sept 11) asks whether you, if given a choice, would choose either security or freedom. In political quizzes, security and freedom are often metered as polar opposites: 'security' to the extreme is an authoritarian police state, the greatest 'freedom' is a sort of libertarian anarchy with neoliberal economic policies.

In other words, people choosing to die for freedom are choosing freedom over security. People willing to give up basic democratic rights for a dose of safety — real or imagined — are the kind of drones who are fine under a dictatorship (until they realize how bad it is — if they do — and the rest flows from there), or at least fine with the principles of one.

The people are sure to demand security. But it's the government's duty to insure freedom and not to entertain the more irrational wishes of the public and exploit their irrationalities for own power or wealth. Time and time again the general population chooses security over freedom, often after being coned by governing leaders; time and time again they regret that choice. Freedom's benefits are reaped over time, whereas security's effects are seen instantly: 'no new attacks' or 'attack stopped, but threat still there'; people are scared away from their own freedom.

Coincidentally, since the poll will end on the sixth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks upon the United States, the limiting of freedom for the sake of security — and vice versa — will be something to think about all the more. The freedoms of people are often limited during wartime; following 9/11 the Bush administration, and other governments around the world, worked to curb certain liberties in the name of security. The abuse of power under the deceiving namesake of 'security' is yet another thing to think about: we've seen it under a rainbow of despots, from the Emperors of Ancient Rome to McCarthy in Cold War-era America.

Does one need security to allow freedom to flourish? Or is true security granted only when freedom exists? Can the two coexist — even in theory?

Also coming up in a little less than a month is the one year birthday of In Perspective.