creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Ben Shapiro
Ben Shapiro
22 Oct 2014
Why Republicans Don't Get It

The Republican Party simply doesn't get it. A new poll this week shows 2012 presidential nominee and 2008 … Read More.

15 Oct 2014
A Bowla Ebola Idiocy

On Monday, The Daily Mail reported that NBC's chief medical correspondent, Nancy Snyderman, had a hankering … Read More.

8 Oct 2014
Rise of the Barbarians

On Friday night, a Huntington Beach man, 43, was walking back to his car after the Los Angeles Angels played … Read More.

7 Reasons to Worry About Federal Surveillance

Comment

With leaker Edward Snowden revealing to the world that the National Security Agency has been both monitoring phone records for all Americans and obtaining emails, videos, voice chats and other private communications between American citizens and those outside the United States under the so-called PRISM program, controversy has broken out over the scope of government surveillance.

Many on the right and the left have argued that these programs are necessary to curb terrorism. Both Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner of Ohio have proclaimed that Snowden is a traitor for revealing the existence of the programs. Both Republican House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers of Illinois and President Barack Obama say that the programs have stopped terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, others argue that these programs do not threaten basic civil liberties at all, and that Americans have nothing to fear. David Brooks of the New York Times says that the real threat to Americans isn't surveillance, but cynicism: "Big Brother is not the only danger facing the country. Another is the rising tide of distrust, the corrosive spread of cynicism, the fraying of the social fabric ..."

The truth is far less black and white than all of this. These programs may stop terror attacks; it is likely they have done so. But are they necessary to stop terror attacks, or are they merely the most convenient means for the government to do so? We all want Americans to be safe. But we also would like our emails to be private. Are those two goals mutually exclusive?

Here are the top seven reasons to worry about these federal surveillance programs.

1. It's the federal government, and the federal government cannot be trusted with unlimited personal information. As we've seen from the IRS scandal, actors at any level of government can use information to target political opposition. Distrust of government isn't baseless cynicism. It's realism. The government is filled with human beings — 1.4 million, at last count, who have top secret security clearances. Some are bound to be nasty. After all, if Boehner and Feinstein are right, and Snowden is a traitor, he had access to all that information, too.

2. Blanket surveillance does not mesh with the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is quite clear on the notion that search and seizure must not be unreasonable. It is difficult to think of something more unreasonable than searching the private phone records and digital information of citizens who are suspected of nothing.

3.

Where does government power stop? What information does the government not have a right to see at this point? Obamacare has made the government part of our health care decisions. The IRS controls all of our financial information. The NSA apparently sees everything else.

4. The anti-terror rationale for violation of rights is identical to the rationale for gun control. Many of the same folks on the right now defending NSA surveillance object to blanket gun laws that affect the rights of hundreds of millions. The argument on the left is simple: To save one life, we'll take as many guns as we have to. Flip this argument to terror, and suddenly many on the right make that exact argument. It's bad policy on both fronts.

5. It's an excuse to treat terror in politically correct fashion. There are many who say that we have accepted blanket screening at airports and should therefore accept blanket screening of personal information. That presumes that blanket screening at airports isn't asinine. It is. Profiling behavior and associations should be the basis for law enforcement. The government argues that a panopticon national security apparatus keeps Americans safest. But that ignores the fact that panopticon capabilities do not necessarily translate into panopticon effectiveness.

6. Centralization of information is a magnet for foreign hacking. Reportedly, much of this NSA information will be kept at a centralized location in Utah. Recently, the Chinese government has been hacking into American governmental installations including the Federal Reserve and the Pentagon. Keeping our information available for download by a creative foreign government is a recipe for disaster.

7. The nature of Americanism is changing in very nasty ways thanks to growth of government. The debate about rights versus safety is a valuable one. But too many Americans are now thinking in terms of "needs" vs. rights. We have heard politicians ask whether we truly need to be free from government surveillance; these same politicians often ask whether we need a certain level of income, or need AR-15s. We may not need those things, but we have a right to them. The moment America becomes a "needs" country in which the government unilaterally decides what we need and regulates everything else we cease to be America.

Ben Shapiro, 29, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, a radio host on KRLA 870 Los Angeles, and Editor-At-Large for Breitbart News. He is The New York Times bestselling author of "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
So what about Snowden, young Shapiro? Here you are another cheap word hawker profiting off of the huge risk he has taken without taking any risk yourself. How about the elephant in the room, young Shapiro? Where is your spine?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:21 PM
Yeah, I'd like to know Bens stance on Snowden as well. He is very careful not to go one way or another. But this is an op-ed. We want to know your opinion. Since the article makes very good points about why spying is bad, why dosen't Ben just come out and say what Snowden did was in the best interest of the American people? Hey, if fienstein and boaner agree on this, then you know the opposite must be true. (Note, I purposefully uncapitalised and misspelled the names of these douchbags out of disrespect so don't get on me about it Masako.)
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:38 AM
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -4th amendment to the Constitution.

This is the real elephant in the room, right? Because the founders didn't foresee Lady Gaga, as Time magazine quipped last October, may one extrapolate from this that "papers" refers to, in a broad modern sense, emails, phone calls, and website visits? The answer is "No" because the government is so busy, busy, busy protecting us.
I'm not sure what to make of Snowden, but I do know what to make of a federal government that violates the clear intent of the 4th amendment. To some it may be important to marginalize this author by referring to him as "young Shapiro", but while concerning oneself with that very important thought, the feds are marginalizing your rights as a free born person.

That's twice Masako refers to a columnist not taking a "risk". Should these guys go skydiving to qualify for cerification? Has Snowden taken a risk? One would suppose, therefore are his thoughts automatically justifiabe and righteous? Faulting an author for not mentioning what you want mentioned seems like faulting a grape for not being a plum. Odd to be churlish toward Snowden and Shapiro while the government is clearly violating Constitutional rights.

Give me liberty or give me...misplaced anger? No wonder the power structure gets away with all this nonsense; some people think Snowden is the issue, or the elephant in the room. Don't let's be silly, or do constitutional violations amount to nothing?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Tom
Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:49 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Ben Shapiro
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 23 Oct 2014
Matt Towery
Matt ToweryUpdated 23 Oct 2014
R. Emmett Tyrrell
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.Updated 23 Oct 2014

4 Jan 2008 Huckabee Nomination Could Spell Defeat for GOP

12 Sep 2012 Hollywood Star Embraces Incest

25 Sep 2013 Is the United States Splitting Apart?