[henry quirk]

"Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong and don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't mind if the government takes a peek at emails, text messages, phone records, etc."

I've heard and read several permutations of the above. It's the end result of a specious line of thinking beginning with the idea 'secrecy' and 'privacy' are synonymous.

Forgive the vulgarity, but: there's nuthin' illegal, immoral, or unethical (nuthin' 'secret') about my bowl movements, but I still close the door when I have them.

The frequency of my movements, the length of time of my movements, the consistency of my movements, and the content of my movements, ain't no body's business but mine.

In the same light: if I am '*self-possessed', then I have a reasonable expectation my communications with another self-possessed individual are as private as I and the other choose to make them. That is: an intimate conversation (by text, e, or phone) will remain -- by definition -- private 'till I or the other choose otherwise.

Collecting records of when we communicate, how long we communicate, and (even though it is denied that such information is collected) the contents of our communications, implies my possession of 'me' (and that which issues from 'me') is somehow, 'not' mine.

If this is the case, then I do not own myself...a notion I have a rather LARGE problem with.



"But, Henry, such (meta)data collection is necessary, and, has led to ending at least one terrorist plot! Surely, you can't be against 'security'?!"

Well, some official claims a plot was foiled...I wanna see the evidence of this (which, of course, won't happen 'cause the plot, and all related information is, 'classified'...very convenient).

And: with such a depth and breadth of information 'necessarily' collected, one might think the whole Boston Marathon bombing could have been averted (if it, indeed, was a terrorist event with the enactors in contact with overseas cronies).

No doubt, collecting willy-nilly all manner of (meta)data 'can' improve security but, does the end justify the means?

Example: It is possible, well before labor, to accurately identify physical/neurological infirmities in the unborn. Since such assessments of the embryo/fetus/baby/whatever are possible, why not have pregnant women submit to testing and, if profound irregularities are found, have the 'whatever' terminated? Abortions for cause would -- in the long run -- save a god-awful amount of money (for everyone by way of lowering overall medical and health care costs) and the eugenic benefit (an increasingly healthy gene pool) would also benefit everyone.

The reason such a program doesn't exist (in America) is 'cause folks don't believe 'that' (cluster of) end(s) justifies the means.



"Henry, all this data collection is legal."

Embedded in 'it's legal' is an ass-backward idea, that being: because it's legal, it must be good. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but it seems to me sumthin' should be 'good' in practice prior to codification as 'law'.

Also: it seems naive to think because the powers that be promote sumthin' by way of legalizing it, this sumthin' is inherently 'good'. It's a naiveté born of dangerous, ill-founded, assumptions about the nature of power, and those who **seek it, hold it, and use it.



"Hey, corporations do this kind of information gathering all the time!"

Sure, but no corporation is empowered to jail me or kill me. At best (or worst), corporations can inundate me with tailored advertising, which I'm not obligated to pay attention to.



Fundamentally: what the powers that be do with (meta)data collection is no different than rifling through closets and underwear drawers. Beyond the fact the powers are peeking at your panties (or, reading your old love letters, or, judging your porn collection), they're in your home without permission.










*self-owned

**not a single person in the American system is 'in' power for any reason other than he or she sought it...every elected and appointed official wanted that position and worked to claim it...my point: these folks are not selfless types who only wanna 'do good' and 'serve'