My Life in Circles: Why Metadata is Incredibly Intimate

[Pholus]

38. Ethics: If you collect data, be honest about the reason.

Your toll road example is nice, however, because it sharply points out where there is a difference between the collection of data for legitimate transactional reasons and the supposed "right" of the government to create a massive federation of all this information and then use that information in the absence of suspicion. It is pure moral cowardice to hide one behind the other.

I have a right to be left alone in my affairs -- that is what Griswold v. Connecticut guarantees. The toll road can, for operational reasons, record the license plate of scofflaws or for convenience it can use electronic trackers to enforce toll payments. Those reasons are obvious. Even your safety reason is justifiable I guess, though again the counter would be a better system. But what is the justification for video surveillance and license plate readers to create a permanent record of who obeyed the law and used the "cash only" lane then? Overreach and power trips and civil rights abuses...

Even when those records exists, there is no reason they should be shared outside of the relevant application. If I am suspected of a murder, the government has a limited right to that information from the toll road as long as they can demonstrate the relevance to a neutral third party. But other than that, there is NO legitimate reason that information should leave the servers of the transportation department.

Of course, that's the actual reason the government tries to shut down any challenges to those FISA blanket warrants with claims of national secrecy. It's also why the very legal opinions justifying their actions are classified. We all know they do not have a legal right to take everything and then troll it with software to try to predict our behavior, associates or loyalty. But if they can keep the knowledge that it is being done suppressed for just a few more years, then "we've always known its being done" will grandfather it in.

Certainly there are a few on DU who would make that claim that based on the 2005 allegations already. When this one dies down, the same people will make the claim the next time new and grander abuses manage to find their way into the light of day.

By the way, in your last bit, we were talking about the fourth, not the fifth amendment in the last part. In your model it is not self-incrimination if I accept a package (say 32 pounds of pot) delivered to me (or left on my door) because it is a public record -- go ask the Mayor of Berwyn Heights how that assumption worked out for him. If I have paid for a service from the post office and the government has no articulated reason to suspect me, they do not have a right to permanently record the transaction.