The Inevitable Privacy / Government Posts, Part IV

(this is the fourth and final part of a series. It starts here.  Part III is here.)

A Modest Proposal

(It's quite frustrating to find that Swift has become hackneyed, especially when one believes that an entirely new dimension of irony is available from his words. Oh, well...)

With all these issues arising over privacy on a government level (thanks, NSA) and on a personal level (thanks, Google Glass), it might just be that the answer we're looking for it right in front of our eyes.

I don't need this or this.  Just this ashtray.  And this paddle game.

Simon Cameron is often quoted as the authority on honest politicians as:  "one who, when he is bought, stays bought."  By this measure, we are represented by some of the most honest politicians in the short history of our democratic republic.  It's just a shame that the market was a little too rich for the blood of most individual American citizens.

Throughout this series, I've been somewhat critical of America's obsession with entertainment media, and any who know me are aware of my distaste of "reality" shows.  Yet, the same concept can be the first element of an approach to fixing government that the American public could understand, and possibly approve.

During the commentary on domestic spying and privacy, I've repeatedly heard opinions along the lines of, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear with having your activities recorded." While this statement is either naive or downright evil when applied to the population at large (a discussion for another day) it may provide the the second part of the answer to accountable government that we've been looking for.  In outline form then - with many, many unresolved details and nuances - here it is:

"Full Disclosure"

• Upon announcement of forming an interest group, throughout any campaign and, if elected, until the expiration of the term of office, any candidate for a seat in the U.S. Congress, or for any federal elected position, shall be subject to "continuous recording."
• Subjects of "continuous recording" shall be outfitted with one or more devices which shall reliably record the area around the subject (typically) from the subject's point of view, and shall record all sound around the subject, including the subject's speech and any sounds or speech audible to the subject.
• The sound and video recorded by these devices shall be reliably and securely captured, and reliably and securely transmitted for permanent storage ("the permanent record").  Device-stored data will be erased from the device once it has been verified as being included in the permanent record.
• Except as otherwise provided for, the contents of the permanent record shall be released into the public domain 24 months after it is recorded [note: just a proposed time-frame, but it needs to be well-considered and definitive, maybe based on specific office].
• The subject may note specific dates, times, and periods of activity which can reasonably considered as personal, and request that the permanent records of these time periods be sealed and withheld from public disclosure. 
• An independent judicial panel will review the requests above, and will determine whether the public interest supersedes the subject's privacy in each specific instance, and may determine that some, all, or none of the permanent record for that period be released as scheduled.
• There may be provisions to allow more immediate release of the permanent record, perhaps on the basis of a request from the subject, or from another individual recorded in the permanent record.

In a nutshell, that's it.  The intent is total accountability for any elected public servant at the federal level.  When acting to pursue elected office or when serving in that office, candidates understand that everything they do will be part of the public record.  This also means that it will be known and understood that any conversation held with an elected official or candidate will also become part of the public record.

There are plenty of details that would need to be worked out, but all are surmountable. It's unlikely that this would become law before being implemented.  Rather, candidates could arise who would voluntarily commit to these requirements.  Rather rapidly, each candidate for office would need to decide whether to be a "Full Disclosure" candidate, or not.

Some of the arguments against this proposal are fairly predictable, and I will briefly address the most obvious:

Every American is entitled to have some areas of privacy in their lives, and this is just too invasive, even for politicians.

Clearly, our elected representatives do not feel this way, based on the laws they have passed and activities they have approved.  But, even if we believe this in theory, candidates will have to make a conscious decision:  An individual who runs for office today forfeits a great deal of privacy that many of us take for granted.  This would certainly increase the degree of that forfeiture but, knowing the requirements in advance, nobody is forced to run for office.

How could we trust judicial oversight to properly balance the public's right to know what their representatives are doing against the valid personal space of those representatives?

We trust the rule of law and judicial independence as essential in maintaining the balance of power in the federal government.  This type of approach is the one actually chosen by our current representatives to protect our individual rights in the context of national security, so it would make sense that they would have just as much trust when it was them under the microscope, no?

How would we possibly be able to secure.... (technical details about recording, encrypting, securing, and storing data)?

We have some of the most amazing technical resources in the world available in this country.  From my personal knowledge, there is no technical challenge presented by this proposal that cannot be addressed using existing technology.  I welcome comment, though, and hope to actually see others propose tangible solution proposals.  (I am not in a position to fund this technology development, and have no plans to do so, but would be happy to provide assistance to any who wanted to make this concept a reality.)

Wouldn't there be ways to get around it?

It may be possible, and that possibility will need to be addressed, but decent technology would make this detectable, and policy could be build around that fact.  For example, it might be immediately and publicly announced if a subject was bypassing or disabling or had discontinued use of the devices.  Generally, this would need to be seen as a requirement (either ethical or legal), where the subject is expected to cooperate and help ensure a complete and correct record.

Many of the fine Americans currently serving in elected office would simply be unwilling to continue lending their talents if these kind of draconian disclosures were required.

Good.

This is intended to disrupt the status quo, which includes those fine Americans who are so dismally failing to do the business of this nation.  The basic consequence of this proposal would be accountability of office seekers and holders for their activities and statements.  If that seems to be too much to ask, then America can thank them for their service, and there will undoubtedly be a long line of others willing to step in and do the work that needs to be done in an open and unashamed manner.

Some of the business of Congress involves wheeling and dealing, and maybe even the kinds of compromises and pressures that Regular Citizens don't actually want to know the details of.  This proposal would keep business from getting done.

(Also known as the "You Can't Handle The Truth" argument.) The poet John Godfrey Saxe is credited with writing that, "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made."  Yet Upton Sinclair's revelations on the latter topic did not end the production of sausage, but only tempered the obscenely disgusting process that created it, and ultimately gave us (among other things) better sausage.  A review of the state of our government at this time makes is abundantly clear that not only is little sausage being made, but constituents are the ones being led to the metaphorical abattoir.

This really is part of the discussion:  Do we want to have a country that requires its government to operate ways so shameful that they cannot ever be revealed to the light of day?

What about real honest-to-gosh national security discussions, which could run for periods longer than the default period until disclosure?

This would have to be made provision for, but would likely still be subject to judicial review on a case-by-case basis.  (A proposal to, say, make all of a particular Committee's meetings automatically exempt wouldn't work, as it would create a "cone of silence" without regard to valid national interest.)  Despite possible delays of release, an important principle would be that the record would be made public at some point.

Aren't there some things about the nation's business that should never be revealed?

Your spider-sense should tingle as soon as you hear someone make that argument.  Right now, I believe the answer is: No.

If this starts out as voluntary, then won't those who are elected without offering Full Disclosure simply refuse to work with those who do?  Won't those elected with Full Disclosure be persecuted, victims of mud-slinging, and otherwise not allowed to play in any reindeer games?

The answer is probably Yes.  This is where is gets difficult:  In order for this to work, there would need to be a grass-roots consensus that we actually DO want our representatives to be honest and transparent in representing our interests.  While this idea, and anyone who takes is seriously, will be ridiculed and vilified, what will really matter is whether people actually want a government that is working for them - the citizens - or one that continues to work for the highest bidders and social-club buddies.

Congress controls a 3.8 trillion-dollar budget, and each of its members is required to run a constant publicity and marketing campaign in an attempt to return to office:  To do this, money is accepted from pretty much everywhere.  To those who donate, whose interests are being met by the system today, whose livelihoods depend on the continuation of secret deals, perks, and lousy governance - this kind of change would be catastrophic.  Every effort will be made to ignore the idea and, if it somehow gains traction anyway, every effort will be made to defeat it.  Count on it.

So, if any candidate were to equip themselves in this way voluntarily and run for office, they would be in an unenviable position.  They would be hated by both parties, by many of those who rely on the status quo, and by everyone who could be convinced to hate them.  Questionable items from their background would be discovered or manufactured. Their mental state would be questioned.  Their donors (if any) would be harassed. They would find it difficult to get access to advertising. They might find their finances under review by local, state, and/or federal entities.  Generally, it would suck to be them.

But it's quite possible someone will stand up and take that abuse in order for things to change.  Maybe it will be an incumbent, or maybe someone new.  Maybe it will just be one person, or maybe it will be a dozen, or hundreds.  Maybe it will change everything, or maybe nothing will change at all.

But, as a country, we're at a crossroads:  With all of the fretting about privacy and security - with the utter failure of our legislative, executive, and judicial branches to do the essential work of the United States - with all of the technology, talent, and boundless data storage available today, we have both the capability and the need to make this kind of choice.

But will we - collectively or individually - have the will to do it?  It would require courage on the part of those who would seek these positions of service, and it would require courage from each citizen, in both speaking and voting to support something new and different.  Will we have the moral courage to choose honesty, rather than just talk about it?

Let me know what you think in the comments below.

The Inevitable Privacy / Government Posts, Part III

(this is the third installment of a series, which starts here)

It's Time We Had A Little Talk...

In various ways, and by various interpretations, it's fairly easy to argue that almost all of the players involved in this creeping, pervasive digital Peeping-Tom-ism acted with some of the best of motivations, such as a desire to preserve the country seen as being under threat, and the desperate need to modernize counterintelligence after a small group's attack revealed it's creaky and outmoded ineffectiveness.

Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There are those who will downplay the significance of the recent leaks by Edward Snowden, either because they consider the journalism itself second-rate, or because they are as unsurprised as I am in these revelations, and assume that any good citizen would already be aware of this. This isn't really central to this series, so I'll leave it for another day, except to say that Snowden's disclosures are important not because this is really shocking, but because it stirs the pot.  The discussion allows for opinions like those linked above to enter the discussion, and perhaps have a chance to be mentioned and considered with at least as much depth as King of Thrones or entertainment awards shows.  The true eye-opener is not that we were unaware, but that - like children under your roof or that cute little baby alligator - this this has grown imperceptibly over time, and is now a lot bigger than you once thought possible.

And this is important, because it's not a singular realization.  The fact of the matter is that, over time, we have lost what really matters:  We have lost the conscience of our nation.

Americans love the story of the lone underdog, who speaks truth to power, reveals corruption and abuse of the public trust, and saves the day for Joe and Jane American. And, from time to time, we'd had those underdogs, and had come to expect a sort of institutional humility,  even when insincere.  We want to believe that our government is accountable to the people.  That our national does not sit here, lounging across the North American continent merely to consume a steady stream of piña coladas and dance music, while a small number of folks wield extraordinary power contrary to every principle of ethics and democracy we think we know.  Sure - there would be a small number of folks with extraordinary power - that's a given:  But they were to be folks known to us, chosen by us, and accountable to us.  This recourse to firings - to protests - to the demand to be treated as meaningful participants in our own government - has been the source of that institutional humility.  It's been what we imagine as the happy ending to the cinematic drama of American life.

Oops.

Instead, we are seeing accountability go away - from individuals and institutions: As our agencies implement policies that create very intimate bedfellows of corporate and public governance, it no longer becomes an option to let the rabble poke about with sensitive policy matters.  Like security in our national defense, the additional prong of security in our livelihoods became a ticket to negating accountability.  Principles must yield, "we must think practically about this," or people might get hurt, killed, or even *gasp* poor.

Nice house you've got there.  Be a shame if anything were to *ahem* happen to it.

Protest as Primal Scream Therapy

The Occupy movements were a reaction to a feeling.  Despite the attempts of some professional protesters to the contrary, the sound of all those people on the streets was not a cry for a definitive solution, but a basic yell of pain.  Not just economic pain, but a far more fundamental and telling pain:  It was the loss of our collective conscience's ability to be heard.   For the first time, it began to become very clear that it made little difference who was elected to office at the national level: On the minor issues, the differences were those of cold and structured paternalistic craziness versus warm and structured maternalistic craziness; of mad idiots who believed that they were anointed by God to lead the world versus mad idiots who believed that they were anointed by Gaea to let the world lead itself.  On the large issues:  issues of accountability, issues of personal respect, privacy, and autonomy?  The Who told us already.  Yet we permitted ourselves to be fooled again and again.  Voices were raised in the realization that we no longer had a voice.

But even those voices were silenced.  Within the course of a week, I was on the streets of New York first as a protester waving an American flag, and then as a businessman in a suit.  I saw Bloomberg's use of crowd suppression, infiltration, and dispersal tactics utilized to amazing effect:  A protest of what I would guess was tens of thousands of people was slap-chopped into little pieces and made to look like a couple of thousand.  Media interviews were always with the "fringe" types.  Meanwhile, Wall Street truly lived in fear: Twenty-foot "security zones" outside building doors.  Dogs.  Three forms of ID to get in to a meeting, and one of them had better be a tie.

In elections, even those thought (or claiming) to be "different" and "independent" weren't.  The system was well-established.  Anyone who spends a day talking to staffers and visiting Congressional offices knows this.  As citizens, we are pretty much the pesky three-year-old in the room: "The grown-ups have to talk now, sweetie, maybe you can go out with your friends and see who sings the prettiest or something?"

"How can politicians represent you when they are paid $millions to represent others?"

It would take something radical to change the character of government in the U.S.

Coming up in the final installment of this series:  A Modest Proposal