We've had a lot of discussions about the proper balance between individual privacy, state powwer, and security. One thing that occured to me is that we've traditionally argued about where the 'wall" should be (what things can we assume are private) and under what circumstances the state should be allowed to reach across that wall to see what is inside. This construct is the product of a time when searches were intrusive (actually going through your household, interrogations, etc).
Today, it is possible for law enforcement to gather a lot of info and do it entirely unobtrusively. There's no technical reason that your phone couldn't be tapped, your spending montored, your ovements monitored, etc. Now, what if we "moved the wall" and made all this fair game. Anything that LE could discover without the knowledge of the "targeted" individual or anyone else outside of LE would be okay. HOWEVER, the restrictions would move from "what LE is allowed to collect" to "how LE is allowed to use it." If they use it to prosecute crimes, apprehend terrorists, etc--then okay. If there's any use of this info to stifle political dissent, to pay off political cronies, etc, that would be out of bounds (and the individual allowed to sue the govt, etc for compensation, the individuals responsible would be subject to criminal sanctions, etc.
Moving from controlling the collection of info to controlling appropriate use of it is a scary idea, and I'm not saying it is a good one. But, it would increase security and do it with minimal intrusiveness.
Think of the British subway bombing investigation--within a few days they had arrested everyone involved. It was due to scary "big brother" surveilance cameras and an effective database of personal info. We've got no type of publc monitoring in the US anywhere near as effective, or as open for abuse ("Nigel, look! It's that Labor politician boarding the tube with that prostitute! Freeze that and call the Sun.") Still, we rarely hear of these abuses, because the strictures against abuse of the data (not the collection of the info itself) are very strong.
Today, it is possible for law enforcement to gather a lot of info and do it entirely unobtrusively. There's no technical reason that your phone couldn't be tapped, your spending montored, your ovements monitored, etc. Now, what if we "moved the wall" and made all this fair game. Anything that LE could discover without the knowledge of the "targeted" individual or anyone else outside of LE would be okay. HOWEVER, the restrictions would move from "what LE is allowed to collect" to "how LE is allowed to use it." If they use it to prosecute crimes, apprehend terrorists, etc--then okay. If there's any use of this info to stifle political dissent, to pay off political cronies, etc, that would be out of bounds (and the individual allowed to sue the govt, etc for compensation, the individuals responsible would be subject to criminal sanctions, etc.
Moving from controlling the collection of info to controlling appropriate use of it is a scary idea, and I'm not saying it is a good one. But, it would increase security and do it with minimal intrusiveness.
Think of the British subway bombing investigation--within a few days they had arrested everyone involved. It was due to scary "big brother" surveilance cameras and an effective database of personal info. We've got no type of publc monitoring in the US anywhere near as effective, or as open for abuse ("Nigel, look! It's that Labor politician boarding the tube with that prostitute! Freeze that and call the Sun.") Still, we rarely hear of these abuses, because the strictures against abuse of the data (not the collection of the info itself) are very strong.