By Delbert H. Rhodes, Op-Ed
In a time when everything has gone digital, the Internet offers vast conveniences along with a satellite of worries. Issues of privacy skyrocket as new technologies penetrate the mainstream and everyday lives of consumers.
Recently, the Internal Revenue’s eavesdropping scandal shocked the nation, and while we are reeling and readying for the latest information on who’s to blame and who will be punished, along comes the infamous spider.
Yep, and even though the best of us care to believe that we have the inside skinny on the dearly unspoken detail, something anew offers reason for, well, lack of a better term, reason.
Initially, the Obama/Holder administration took a whopping hit from the populous and critics for the accusations of wiretapping; are they alone in this practice.
Yes, it now seems that the nation’s President, who when he was Senator, running for Presidential office disdained, dismissed, and disagreed with wiretapping, has apparently found reason to “change.”
President Obama believes that wiretapping serves the interest of national security, an interest that has been under the microscope for years.
The earlier stages of wiretapping, beginning during the years of J. Edgar Hoover have grown to become a highly sophisticated technique, called Prism. Operating in the background, this federally operated program seizes records from companies.
Since 911, federal agents have requested information on customer accounts from the Microsoft Corporation. Emails, phone calls, text messages, video chats, you name it, have come under the scope to weed out or reel in suspected data. Initially, the intrusions were meant to identify foreign suspects, but latter day eavesdropping has reared an ugly head.
Everyday people, you and I, now are under federal surveillance. Daily the populous is ticked off by invasive practices, overtly and covertly electronic eyes blink and pan or secretly peep at us from the most accessible of places.
This is witnessed at stoplights, on busy city streets, in office buildings, and in almost every place imaginable, possibly even in discreet bathroom crevices; that is correct, some form of technology spies on our every move, word and deeds.
Why is this happening? The National Security Administration, The NSA, believes it to be necessary. I ask, then in the quest of national security, how the Congress and the Presidential families stand regarding cyber stalking. Are the eyes that watch us also watching them? If not, then what of the national security? Any criminal knows that the best place to hide something is in plain sight.
Can the view offered by the Great Houses of Washington D. C. be better in any other place?
I think not.
Actually, and though President Obama has credentialed its use, wiretapping was secretly given the “Go” by Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush.
According to the AP in a June 15, 2013 story, as reported in “The Secret to the Prism Program,” “Despite that prohibition, shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the NSA to plug into the fiber optic cables that enter and leave the United States, knowing it would give the government unprecedented, warrantless access to Americans’ private conversations.—http://news.yahoo.com/secret-prism-program-even-bigger-140403980.html
The Obama administration has since replicated the Bush treachery, continuing the invasive process.
The AP quotes Obama during his presidential campaign, on the issue of National Security: “This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide,” Obama said in a speech two days before that vote. “I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.”
Apparently, the President’s opinion of undermining our Constitution and our freedoms has suffered great defeat. For if not, then why would he “cherish” an act that violates laws of privacy by permitting governmental intrusions in the homes of non-criminal American citizens?
The entire scenario is one seemingly written in a Hollywood movie script. How often have we seen programs on T.V, or big screen movies depicting out of the courtroom deals made by Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys? Naturally, the defendant expects his or her attorney to provide a properly and hard to defeat defense, yet never understanding the hole in the whole of the process.
The game proceeds in open court while the Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys wage what appears to be bloody battle. The one fighting for the peoples’ interest, the other appearing to fight for the interests of his or her client.
Win or lose, in the end, “we” are at a loss. For the prevailing powers (that be) get what they want, whether we like it or not.
Vote! (You say?)
Copyright © 2013 Delbert H. Rhodes