Lines and Their Erasure

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

Those in the US are living through a remarkable time of redefinition. One might call it the reshaping of the american psyche. What is private and what is not? What is a free speech? Who is a "terrorist?" Perhaps more important than definition is will the people accept the definitions? There are troubling indicators in the news that the attack is on, and amazingly, that some seem to quietly acquiesce.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals (Massachusetts) ruled that email providers have a right read private email. The ruling was based on the fact that email resides (however briefly) on the email servers, and the owners of those servers have the right to read what is there. If the ruling stands, the ramifications are huge. Employers already claim the right to monitor all employee email communication that passes through company servers. (They also track internet usage, and even have keystroke monitors.) The new ruling extends that in dramatic ways and extends it not just to email providers, but to the US government.

Given the Court's ruling, any server an email went through (and they go through many - including the Pentagon's NIPR system) would have the right to copy and read any communication. It seems an ironic ruling given the Congress's various attempts to stop spam and phone solicitors under the guise of invasion of privacy. There is concern, that the ruling could be expanded to all electronic communication (telephone for example). Cell phones (and wireless phones) are already not protected because they use radio waves which can be picked up by anyone with the radio bandwidth.

It seems that under this logic of "if it is in someone else's possession they have a right to read it" could extend to standard mail as well. Certainly this would apply to businesses that provide private mail box services, but by also extension, to the public mail system as well. I guess that we might be back to the concept of private communication as the personally hand delivered note, or whispering in someone's ear.

MSNMoney has been running a poll asking people if they would be willing to have an RFID injected into their bodies. (Thanks to Prison Planet for the heads-up on this.) A Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) would allow you to be tracked by whoever (an employer, the police, the government). Amazingly, 22% of the respondents say that they would be willing to have an RFID implanted. There are already plans to include such devices on passports.

In the category of both free speech and terrorism, we have the attack on environmentalists.

Those in the Pacific Northwest will be familiar with the name Tre Arrow (aka Michael Scarpitti). Mr. Arrow has sought refuge in Canada from prosecution for "terrorism" (environmental terrorism that is) in the U.S. The headline, U.S. paints environmentalist seeking refugee status in Canada as terrorist, says it all. Arrow is alleged to have set fire to logging trucks in 2001. Does it seem strange to anyone else that environmentalists are "terrorists," but corporations (and the US military) who massively pollute the environment are not? The case is raising questions in Canada about how far they will go in accepting the US' redrawing of the definition of "terrorism."

In another attack on environmentalists (and freedom of speech) the IRS is looking at limiting land grants to environmental organizations. The gifts and bequests of land to some environmental groups has become a way of preserving wild spaces. "The IRS is specifically targeting gifts of "conservation easements" -- deed restrictions that limit some types of real estate development." Personally, I see this as a free speech issue. People are contributing resources to organizations who stand for what they feel is important. The gifts make a statement as well as taking specific action. As such, it would seem to me, the gifts should be constitutionally protected.

The IRS action also raises a concern given the Bush administration's branding of environmentalists as "terrorists." Would those who give land, money, or other donations, to environmental groups be seen as supporters of terrorism? And way out there (given the privacy issues above) would you be part to a "terrorist conspiracy" by sending your donation over the internet?

Posted by rowan at July 1, 2004 08:00 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |