Breaking trust: Back off, government
Some startling news came out of the nation of Oceania this week.
Excuse me, I mean Great Britain.
The story is about Jenny Paton, a 40-year-old mother of three, who allegedly falsified her address so her youngest daughter could attend the neighborhood school. Shortly thereafter her telephone records were seized and an officer from the Poole education department began following her.
The good news: Ms. Paton’s daughter was still admitted to the school, where she is presently mastering basic addition like two plus two is five.
The bad news: Disproportionate is an understatement for the amount of government involvement in such an inconsequential case.
Nevertheless, thanks to Britain’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 474 local governments and 318 different agencies can self-authorize surveillance powers to monitor everything from loan-sharking to whether or not citizens scoop up after their dogs. And while it may not be backed by federal law here yet, a similar trend of government over-involvement is developing in the U.S. affecting you, me and my beagle Copper.
I understand there are times when it becomes necessary to act covertly to avoid influencing people’s behaviors. For instance, you’ll never catch the person falsely claiming welfare benefits if you approach them openly about it. They’ll cover their tracks and you’ll be lost.
But does Big Brother really need to step in when I forget to recycle my newspaper?
The triviality is best summed up in a quote from Paton in Oct. 24's New York Times article: “As far as I’m concerned, they’re within their rights to scrutinize all applications, but the way they went about it was totally unwarranted,” she said. “If they’d wanted any information, they could have come and asked.”
Asking — what an interesting concept.
Maybe the man who forgets to separate paper and plastic really doesn’t have anything to hide. He’s an average citizen, but the government increasingly wants to think of him as a criminal mastermind (see the Bush Administration’s handling of “unlawful enemy combatants”).
In Privacy International’s 2007 rankings, the United States is also labeled an endemic surveillance society. Unlike Britain’s general acceptance of government surveillance, Americans reacted strongly to the Bush administration’s Patriot Act and wiretapping scandal. Then again, it’s interesting to note the intrusions of privacy that we allow everyday.
For instance, according to every counselor and guidebook out there, there are three things that can keep you from landing your dream job: a drug test, a criminal record and your Facebook profile.
Even colleges have become adept in the way of Facebook-stalking. They rifle through your pictures and friends to see if the information you’re broadcasting about yourself matches with their notion of an ideal student. We accept it and untag ourselves from a few pictures.
The more important question, though, is should we have? Should institutions be able to initiate their own covert operations on our online activity? Students might be more alarmed if they had to attach their cell-phone records to the Common Application.
The answer is no and it relates back to Paton’s quote. Ask, seek or knock on my door with a question and I’ll give you an honest answer.
“Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offense?”
“No, and that should be enough of a response to verify it.” (Ask me a serious question though, like whether or not I remembered to clean up after Copper during our walk, and you’ll have to catch me to find out.)
Political scientists like to toss around the idea of political efficacy, or the public’s trust in government. It’s on the decline. However, government’s trust in the public is also decreasing. Can you blame them? I don’t trust the people who put their trash out late either — sickos.
Medill freshman Peter Larson can be reached at peterlarson2013@u.northwestern.edu.
