'Whatever
one thinks of the God idea, the big difference between God almighty and
the secular almighty is that the former is supposed to be benign,
whereas I don’t think it uncontroversial to say that the NSA is not.'
Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA
It's nothing new, this fear that there is someone
out there watching my every move, knowing my inmost thoughts. It used to
be a fear of God. Now it's a fear of Google, the NSA and GCHQ.
In other words, we have invented a secular form of omniscience. For the
sake of argument let us bracket out the question of whether this God
actually exists. For present purposes, I am interested in how human
beings have historically reacted to the prospect of there being some
powerful agent/agency who knows everything about us. Thousands of years
ago, the psalmist had it thus:
"O Lord, you have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down
and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from far away. You search
out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. Even
before a word is on my tongue, O Lord, you know it completely. You hem
me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is
too wonderful for me; it is so high that I cannot attain it. Where can I
go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I
ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are
there." (
Psalm 139 vv. 1-8)
But, the psalmist concludes, if we having nothing to hide,
why worry? "Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my
thoughts. See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way
everlasting." This is not dissimilar to Barack Obama's line that in the
trade-off between security and privacy, we ought to trust the listening
spooks not to misuse information they gather about us, that they are
working in our best interests. But, whatever one thinks of (let's call
it) the God idea, the big difference between God almighty and the
secular almighty, is that the former is supposed to be benign, indeed
the very epitome of love itself, whereas I don't think it entirely
uncontroversial to say that the NSA is not.
The problem is, however, that too many Americans think of their
nation as inherently Christian, as set apart by God. For all their
supposed separation of church and state, and for all their supposed
suspicion of big government, in the end a significant proportion of
Americans believe in America in the same way that they believe in God.
They over-identify the Christian "we" with the American "we" – as Stanley Hauerwas puts it. In 1956, the USA replaced its unofficial motto, E pluribus unum(Out of the many, one), with an official motto, "In God we Trust".
Thus the state not so subtly claims for itself the same level of
trust that Christians have in the almighty – thereby answering the
initial fear that the psalmist has about absolute surveillance with the
reassurance that the powers that be are benign and have our ultimate
interests at heart. Nothing could be more dangerous than this, that the
state deserves absolute trust. Which is why it is worth stating and
restating the theologically obvious: the NSA is not God – however much
it might aspire to the absolute power of omniscience.
So today I hear that National Public Radio and other media outlets have decided not to use the word "whistleblower" to describe Edward Snowden. Their narrow reasoning is that, since the NSA data collection was technically "legal", thanks to the Obama administration, Snowden didn't reveal "illegal government activity", therefore he's not a whistleblower. Even if the law is controversial and probably even unconstitutional, and definitely a bad thing? Apparently that doesn't matter.
Jonathan Turley pointed out that "whistleblower" can cover illegal activity, but also "wrongdoing". But most of the media seems perfectly happy to do their part to keep the public from taking too much exception to what the Executive has been doing. It's easy for them to come up with lame, "sensible" sounding excuses. If this were being done under a Romney or Bush administration, rather than under Obama, I wonder how the reaction of the press, and the people, might differ?
People point out that Google, Facebook etc. already have lots of information about us, so what's the big deal? Well, they do collect some information about us, which they use to target advertising to us. But somehow I doubt Google is going to assemble all our social and purchasing data along with all our phone records, skype calls, library books, movements and associations, health records, etc. in order to create a secret dossier that can be used against us any time some official decides that something we've said, some cause we've donated to, someone we've associated with, gives them reason to dig up dirt about us.
Hmmm, I see you traveled to Lebanon recently...oh, you have college friends there; did you know that some of them may have third hand "tribal connections" to suspected extremists (peace activists, perhaps)? I see that you attend the same church as a nun who was part of a group that entered the grounds of a nuclear waste disposal site to paint peace slogans on the wall, and who is now facing federal terrorism charges because of it. And you donated to the ACLU, and have had problems paying back your student loans. Do you often renege on your lawful obligations? What does that say about your character?
With all these suspicious connections, you are certainly a "Person of Interest" to us, and will be added to a database for extra scrutiny when it comes time to file your taxes, or take a flight, or apply for federal loans, or check your credit or criminal background. Be careful what political causes you donate to, and be sure not to make any statements that are overly critical of U.S. Foreign policy or the War on Terror, lest they serve to confirm our suspicions about you. Oh, and, by the way, you can't be told about any of this, or have any means of appealing the process, because it's all Secret, and to reveal it to you would be to reveal our "sources and methods" to the Terrorists, and besides, it would be a violation of your privacy.
It's easy, especially with the power of big data, to build a case against anyone, due to malice or just incompetence. As an analogy, think about how often there is incorrect information in our credit records (studies show it happens a lot). We have no idea how our government and its corporate contractors might use our information, and no recourse should it be misused. We drugged and kidnapped a Canadian/Syrian citizen, Maher Arar, and had him tortured for months because of wrong information linking him to muslim terrorists. After a year he was released, but the impact on his life was considerable, as you might imagine. He was one of the lucky ones who lived long enough to be let free. The Canadians eventually paid him off, but the U.S. still insists it did nothing wrong, and he and his family are still on the "No Fly List" ten years later.
Surveillance has always been abused. Look at the investigations carried out by the Church Committee. Read up on J. Edgar Hoover, and the East German Stasi. Look at the evidence of how the "Fusion Centers" in various American cities teamed up with the feds to surveil and harrass non-violent Occupy activists in various cities. I just can't fathom how people can say this is "no big deal". I just have to conclude that they haven't really thought things through. And I think that's the way the folks in power would like it to remain.
