Privacy rights should be respected despite security fears

Perusing the Washington Post online this weekend, I noticed an ad along the sidebar claiming to eliminate time spent in airport security with the swipe of a "Clear" card. Intrigued, I clicked on the ad's pseudo-credit-card image and was taken to the company's official website which promoted the Clear Card's convenience and security. The process, it claimed, was fairly simple: after enrolling in the program and providing adequate documentation, individuals receive a card that contains their "biometric security information" (otherwise known as a fingerprint and retinal scan). Instead of waiting for hours in line, Clear Card users are able to swipe their cards at a specially designated area, flying past their old-fashioned security checkpoint peers.

Beyond the fact that this idea has some pretty obvious flaws (what happens when a card is lost or stolen, or how secure is the database of biometric information?), it represents a recurring theme of the Bush-era - the overriding of personal privacy in order to combat either terrorism or inconvenience. Even excluding the PATRIOT Act - that oft-cited invader of phone lines and library records - the seven years since September 11th have brought a plethora of legislative and corporative measures which seek control over previously held liberties. As of July of this year, the federal government had already accrued over one million names on the FBI's official terrorist watch list. The National Security Act, first created in the 1970s by President Jimmy Carter, was employed in a post-9/11 world to track key phrases and their use in private phone calls and emails. Though we often look to nations such as China and Iran for examples of censorship and surveillance, some of the best examples are homegrown. In an effort to stave off terrorist attacks - or waiting in lines that prevent such attacks - our nation and the corporations that we house have lost sight of the most fundamental freedoms.

Perhaps the most obvious sign of the times is the REAL ID Act, which was passed as an add-on to a 2005 bill that sponsored delegating funds to troops and providing relief for tsunami victims. This wrapping of a controversial bill in a blanket of impossible-to-vote-against legislation is disconcerting; if the measure was truly necessary for the safety and security of the United States, then it would be able to pass independent from humanitarian and troop-related propositions. While the REAL ID Act does not necessarily indicate the shift to a Big Brother state on par with the former Soviet Union, it should raise some eyebrows. The act's main purpose is to create a national standard in identification cards - namely, drivers' licenses. Most of its requirements are relatively reasonable; however, many of its provisions lay open for broad interpretation and potential manipulation.

Primary among these is the act's requirement for clear distinctions between legal and non-legal persons, a measure that would provide easy and instantaneous access to a person's citizenship status in the United States. In addition, the act would require that DMVs across the nation retain any and all documents pertaining to an individual's identity for at least seven years; photographs must be retained for at least ten. This means that birth certificates, Social Security information, and passports are all stored in a database that is accessible to state authorities across the country. While all of these measures follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, they - like the Clear Card - seem a bit overdone.

We do not need to have over half a million individuals on a watch list; the very idea that such a list has been employed is mildly absurd. The qualifications required to land on the list are unclear and up to the interpretation of an organization not known for its discretion. No checks and balances exist for the watch list system, which will undoubtedly lead to an abuse of the program. The process for appeals is non-existent - largely because individuals are not supposed to know that there are on such a list - which is counterintuitive to the values of privacy and freedom of expression guaranteed by our constitution.

The security of this nation is undoubtedly important; but a nation whose policies are enacted based on fear and suspicion will only remain in a perpetual state of defense. There is more to international politics than the art of defense; the fact that our foreign policy debates during this election season focused almost entirely on foreign combat and nuclear threats says a great deal about the transition we have made in the last eight years. In order to remain credible in our approach to restrictive and authoritarian regimes, we must continue to expand upon the rights and freedoms of our own citizens. Measures such as the REAL ID Act and the PATRIOT Act do little but reinforce the fears which have diminished our global standing. To bring liberty to those who desire it around the world - that is the goal, right? - we must begin at home.