Category | Op Ed

Snooping comes closer to your home

Published on August 21, 2007 by The Sentinel

    The following editorial appeared in the Miami Herald
on Friday, Aug. 17:    According to an adage, being
paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t
actually out to get you. The saying comes to mind because the
government is expanding the access to information from spy satellites
to include more domestic users in law enforcement. This brings
government spying one step closer to home, and you don’t have to be
paranoid to feel uneasy about that.



   

    The Department of Homeland Security discreetly
sidestepped use of words that might raise red flags-like “snooping,”
“spying” or even “surveillance”-in announcing the move. A new DHS
agency called the National Applications Office “will provide more
robust access to needed remote sensing information to appropriate
customers.” Sounds a lot like surveillance, doesn’t it? Reading
further, it becomes clear that this means, among other things, sharing
intelligence and information with “federal, state, and local government
and law enforcement users.”

    Is this a bad idea? Not necessarily. But there is a
reason that for decades the homeland has largely been deemed out of
bounds insofar as the gathering and sharing of intelligence from spy
satellites. A healthy respect for the fundamental importance that
Americans place on the right of privacy has kept satellite intelligence
focused on overseas targets. But according to DHS, 9/11 changed all
that.

    An internal government study group concluded that
there is “an urgent need for action…to effectively employ
Intelligence Community capabilities for civil applications, homeland
security and law enforcement uses.” This need is not so much explained
as simply asserted-that is, we simply are told that it is necessary for
reasons apparently so obvious that they do not need to be set forth.

    Most Americans may well agree that this action is
troubling but necessary. We live in troubled times, and if satellite
technology can be used to enhance our safety at home, why not use it?

    The problem with stealth technology, however, is
that the intrusion-and that’s what it is, call it what they will-is
unseen and undetected. Unlike, say, a search warrant executed on
someone’s home, it leaves no traces. And it is omnipresent. There will
be more satellites, not fewer, and they work around the clock.

    According to DHS, the proper congressional
committees have given their blessing to the plan. Internal procedures
will “ensure the appropriate protection of privacy and civil
liberties.” Maybe, but we would feel more reassured if the program were
subject to independent oversight by the courts or an independent-review
panel that did not answer to the executive branch. Once surrendered,
privacy is rarely given back. You don’t have to be paranoid to believe
that.