Big Brother Is Spying On You!

[simmfx 34]

Here is a Hot Topic going on all over America and elsewhere. I wanted to open it up to hear some feedback and everyone's thoughts on this issue.

 

The rules on the forum are simple: Please keep it nice and polite;

Please stay grounded on the topic of issue of privacy and spying and not so much on the technology of delivery (I know there off topics covering some of this these new tech toys, etc., Xbox One);

 

I think everyone will find the feedback most interesting.

 

Director of National Intelligence Clapper decries 'reprehensible' leaks after report says a secret program is allowing the government to mine nine American tech giants, including Facebook and Google, for user data, a day after report of a secret court order that allows NSA to seize millions of phone records for American Verizon customers.

 

Then we have the Xbox One which allows users to watch TV and movies, listen to music, surf the Internet, etc., all while using voice command. While the voice command feature is neat, it means, of course, that the console is always listening. Even when you’re not actively using the device. Xbox One can not only hear what you’re saying, but see what you are doing, and even tell when you are excited.  The new camera also comes equipped with an infrared technology, so it can see if your heart rate is rising or count how many people are in a dark living room.

 

And of course, we have the Google Glass which is stirring the pot to the point where Casinos all over the US are outlawing the Glass to be worn while users are on the casino showrooms' and gambling tables because of embezzlement and cheating for which the glass could be used for.

 

I am curious to know how the members here feel about these and other issues of the same nature which is clearly taking us into a future of no expectation of privacy. How does everybody feel about Big Brother checking on your calls, or listening and/or seeing you in your living room or worse, your bedroom ( that is if you put the XBO in it), or just standing next to the other fellow in the restroom facilities who happens to be wearing Glass. I don't know about you 'all, but just the thought of that is, well, just a little too creepy, for me...your thoughts.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I don't know why anyone is surprised.  I was aware that NSA tracked the Internet, so getting phone traffic is hardly surprising. 

 

The biggest problem is that the Patriot Act (recently renewed) makes it legal without a lot of judiciary in the act.  Perhaps, that act needs to be allowed to expire if it has a sunset clause, or be quietly repealed.  It is a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, and was not needed at the time, and is surely not needed now. 

 

All this is very costly, and it also cuts into the vaunted freedoms that Americans so love.  How about that treasured First Amendment?  There are several knicks in the freedoms that Americans believe they enjoy, and it is probably about time to straighten them out.

[Cobraroll 138]

And now the news over here tell that the American PRISM program has been accessing profile data from services such as Google, Facebook and Skype, effectively spying on people all over the world - but not Americans, mind you, because the oh-so-sacred Constitution doesn't allow the government to spy on American citizens.

 

But what about the constitutions of other nations, aren't those important any more? Why is it more okay to spy on a Briton or a Swede than an American? I mean, the US government has governance over the United States and its people, and shouldn't have any business rummaging through people's personal data elsewhere.

 

It's almost like Anwar al-Awlaki over again. Three thousand Pakistani, Yemenite and Afghans killed by American drones? No problem! One American, who openly plotted terror against his own government, killed in a drone strike? Raaaaggge!!!

 

*sigh*

 

EDIT:

 

Obama 2007: "No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens... No more ignoring the law when it is an inconvenience... This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no shortcuts to protecting America."

 

This is the stuff I'm talking about. Thanks for providing an example, LarksTongue.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Those who made George Bush out to be Adam Sutler of V For Vendetta are now predictably silent when it is 'discovered' that the current administration has taken it several orders of magnitude higher. James Sensenbrenner, who helped to write the PATRIOT Act, has stated that it wasn't written nor intended to be used in the way that is now; and that how it has been used is illegal. I really don't know where he got the idea that violations of privacy rights will somehow stay within legally prescribed boundaries; it's pretty much a given that they won't. 

 

Meanwhile, it didn't stop the Boston marathon bombing. 

 

The old Ben Franklin quotes have been much overused lately, but never actually believed. As has been noted many times by now, Washington & Co would have been shooting already. 

 

Obama 2007: "No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens... No more ignoring the law when it is an inconvenience... This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no shortcuts to protecting America."

 

This just in: We knew it was going to be found to include all the major phone carriers; turns out it included credit card activity as well: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529112289298922.html

 

So, pretty much, they are watching everyone, all the time. Somehow that is a far scarier prospect than any terrorist attack. Something having to do with some guy named Winston...

[AkemiAzula 280]

That old balance of freedom and protection again coming into the spotlight... 

 

Certainly food for thought. Personally I think technologies such as Google Glasses etc are the future. Think about it. They had miniature cameras for spies back in the cold war. This is new simply because of the common nature of the device. Anyone can buy the latest tech gadget if they can afford it (and most people on benefits will put a flashy new device before their health it would seem) whereas before such things were restricted to espionage and the government. (and criminals of course). 

 

I think such technology is progress... I don't think kneejerking to it is any worse than kneejerking with it as a reaction. Rationally assessing the technology of our times it might seem that privacy is being disregarded. Possibly this is the case. However the internet has been a great experiment in 'anarchy'. It has demonstrated what happens when you remove the usual physical barriers that face us. I am right now talking instantly to people across the world. That is a frightening concept considering I am closer to those people now than my own neighbours!

 

But it is the future. As the world becomes more digitalised we will become more online in nature, and I predict that our offline existence will become the reverse, less important and less creative. When individuality and freedom is found in pixel land we no longer have to be ourselves offline as much. 

 

There is also the factor that when everyone has Google Contacts (or wtvr they come up with next) we'll all be equal much in the same way as before technology. So instead of fisticuffs we'll resort to flame wars. Eventually the childish nature of abusing the devices will wane.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well I hate to break it to you, but this is simply going to be the future. Privacy outside your bathroom? Don't count on it. The internet has given us the chance to connect and rapidly share information all over the world. Quite frankly, Im surprised it has taken the governments of the West this long before they started cracking down on it. I mean, seriously think about it. The 'real' world is governed by all kinds of laws and regulations, but this virtual world would remain untouched by it? While it is hardly any more difficult to commit grievous crimes online as offline? Oh no, the virtual world will not remain this anarchy forever. Governments will barge in and impose systems of control. 

 

But does it matter? No, just as a 'don't steal from the shop' law doesn't matter to you if you don't steal. You won't notice it, you won't get harmed by it, as long as you stick to the rules. If you want to prevent actual tyranny though, you shouldn't focus on the government spying on the people, you should be focusing on the government not setting up all kinds of backward and overly restricting rules and arresting people at random, or jailing them for ridiculously long times for minor crimes. Privacy is not a freedom, better get used to it.  

[Meg 368]

Having taken classes in the Privacy Act / Freedom of Information Act (they are so intertwined that you have to look at both of them together), I learned a few things about the legality of data collection.

 

There is a bunch of legal jargon [link] but a key point boils down to:   a "record" contains data but it has to have some kind of unique identifier about an individual (name, SSN, picture, fingerprint, secret symbol, code word, etc) before the privacy act kicks in.

 

Telephone number is not considered to be a unique identifier because anyone could be using the phone.   The Privacy Act was passed in 1974, which was well before cell phones.   These days, it would be more difficult to argue that a cell phone number is not a unique identifier.  and I suspect that point will be argued in court.

 

But, technically, this is legal.   As long as it doesn't involve actual wiretapping, which seems to be to be an issue of "reasonable search and seizure".

 

Do I find it offensive?  Of course I do.   I do not trust the argument "well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, there is no reason to worry".   I don't consider people to be that trustworthy.

 

Am I surprised?  Of course not.   Any time there is a collection of data, people are going to want to mine it for information.  (Data is raw numbers and text.  Information is in a format that it can actually tell you something.)

 

Do I like the Patriot Act?  Of course not.  It makes it easier for the government to slide over the line of what is appropriate.  (Yes, I realize this is subjective.)

 

btw, that law is when "Patriot" became a bad word.  (A recent question that came up during the IRS mess.)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It is well known that freedom is not free.  Yesterday was an example of the anniversary of paying the price.  A lot of unborn children of WW II casualties paid it all unaware, but does that mean people should be unaware of the Uncle Sam knows best for the citizenry?  Anyone involved in security will tell you that a secret is blown the instant it is known to more than one person.  And here is an old hack from Ben Franklin:

 

"Three people can keep a secret; if two of them are dead."

 

While security operations cannot be kept a total secret because they employ people who are sworn to secrecy which may or may not work, they certainly do their best.  They are correct in objecting to being "outed".

 

If the American people decline to be protected by their security apparatus because they want to babble all over the world, I guess that is yet another problem.  I don't suppose many ever think that the Internet protocol (TCP/IP) is a datagram system and therefore broadcast to the entire net. 

 

This message, yes even this one, is out there for anyone with real desire to see.  The fact that it is on a public forum just makes it easier.

 

Security systems are there for a reason, and if you don't know what it is, and can't find out, you need a higher clearance level than "general public".

[hym 358]

But does it matter? No, just as a 'don't steal from the shop' law doesn't matter to you if you don't steal. You won't notice it, you won't get harmed by it, as long as you stick to the rules.

 

This is an easy argument to make, but imo, it misses what is probably one of the most critical parts of the issue.  In the "don't rob the shop" scenario, the government only gets to invade your privacy when it has reasonable belief that you are connected to the shop robbery.  This is generally considered acceptable as the government only invades your privacy when you have given it reasonable justification to do so.  What the NSA is believed to be doing is equivalent to a police officer following you around everywhere and giving you dirty looks every time you enter the shop, even if you are there to conduct legitimate business.  In this case, the government is invading your privacy even though there is no reasonable suspicion that you will steal from the shop.  Many individuals and privacy advocates don't object to the government having the ability to gain access to these records.  They object to the government being able to gain access without demonstrating a reasonable need for the information, sometimes via methods that, if private individuals or companies attempted to use, would be considered grossly illegal.  (In other words, government agencies are basically bullying their way into getting access to the data.)

 

I, like Meg, don't trust the "if you aren't doing anything wrong..." argument.  In general, individuals with power should not be trusted.  It is too easy for a government official or spokesperson to say "we're following the law" or "appropriate safeguards are in place" or any other reassuring comment, all the while blatantly lying.  The only "appropriate safeguard" is never collecting the data in the first place.  More practically, the guy who is regarded as the brain of sorts behind the supercomputer that is supposed to turn all the NSA's raw data into actionable intelligence resigned over his publicly stated belief that NSA leadership was not actually interested in following the law or protecting the privacy of those it was monitoring.

 

 

Privacy is not a freedom, better get used to it. 

 

The Supreme Court recognizes the Constitution as implicitly granting Americans the right to privacy.

[Meg 368]

  The only "appropriate safeguard" is never collecting the data in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Which is functionally not possible in this day and age.   Back when telephones were hand cranked and required an actual switchboard operator, it was easy to eavesdrop but difficult to collect data.  It would have been time consuming.   Nowadays, the data I readily there for the capture.

 

I'm not talking about recording phone conversations.   The "metadata" as they call it is the phone numbers, date, time, length of call, location of callers, etc. 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court recognizes the Constitution as implicitly granting Americans the right to privacy.

 

 

Citation, please?

 

Nowhere does the word "privacy" appear in the Constitution.   and people see lots of "implicit" things in it.   Which court ruling are you referring to?

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

Those who made George Bush out to be Adam Sutler of V For Vendetta 

 

*Adam Susan.

[simmfx 34]

one picture says it all

 

[hym 358]

Which is functionally not possible in this day and age.   Back when telephones were hand cranked and required an actual switchboard operator, it was easy to eavesdrop but difficult to collect data.  It would have been time consuming.   Nowadays, the data I readily there for the capture.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about recording phone conversations.   The "metadata" as they call it is the phone numbers, date, time, length of call, location of callers, etc. 

 

I don't completely agree with this.  While Verizon has a legitimate business and technical interest in gathering and storing this data, it is not necessary for the continued function of Verizon's services, nor for the success of its business.  If Verizon implemented a records deletion policy of say, storing only the last 3 billing cycles, odds are very high that it would never suffer any adverse effects from this.  Time Warner Cable had a similar policy in place for records pertaining to customer internet usage; aggregate data necessary for proper account management was maintained but the "metadata" was promptly deleted after 30 days.  If you wanted that data, too bad.  It wasn't there anymore.

 

However, I wasn't talking about the service providers.  I was talking about the government.  Outside of investigations, I can't think of a legitimate reason why they would need access to that level of detailed information.  If they need the detailed information, they can (and should have to) request a warrant to obtain it.

 

 

Citation, please?

 

Nowhere does the word "privacy" appear in the Constitution.   and people see lots of "implicit" things in it.   Which court ruling are you referring to?

 

Griswold v. Connecticut

 

According to the link here, the justices derived this from multiple amendments.  (Apparently, the most important being the interpretation of the 9th Amendment to mean that just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee the people a right does not mean they don't have that right anyway.)  Towards the bottom of the page, you can find some additional stuff on the right to privacy.  (Haven't checked to see if any of the sources make sense, however.)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Of course one has to realize that now that this has been blabbed all over the world that miscreants must now seek other covert channels to communicate.  Well done, stupid news media.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is an easy argument to make, but imo, it misses what is probably one of the most critical parts of the issue.  In the "don't rob the shop" scenario, the government only gets to invade your privacy when it has reasonable belief that you are connected to the shop robbery.  This is generally considered acceptable as the government only invades your privacy when you have given it reasonable justification to do so.  What the NSA is believed to be doing is equivalent to a police officer following you around everywhere and giving you dirty looks every time you enter the shop, even if you are there to conduct legitimate business.  In this case, the government is invading your privacy even though there is no reasonable suspicion that you will steal from the shop.  Many individuals and privacy advocates don't object to the government having the ability to gain access to these records.  They object to the government being able to gain access without demonstrating a reasonable need for the information, sometimes via methods that, if private individuals or companies attempted to use, would be considered grossly illegal.  (In other words, government agencies are basically bullying their way into getting access to the data.)

 

 

That is implicitly assuming that privacy is a freedom by itself. But privacy is not a freedom. It does not give you the right to do or say or own something. It only allows you to use your actual freedoms without the government looking at you while you do that. But why do you care if the government looks at you while you are not breaking the law? All they will see is a boring law abiding citizen following the law. 

 

 

I, like Meg, don't trust the "if you aren't doing anything wrong..." argument.  In general, individuals with power should not be trusted.  It is too easy for a government official or spokesperson to say "we're following the law" or "appropriate safeguards are in place" or any other reassuring comment, all the while blatantly lying.  The only "appropriate safeguard" is never collecting the data in the first place.  More practically, the guy who is regarded as the brain of sorts behind the supercomputer that is supposed to turn all the NSA's raw data into actionable intelligence resigned over his publicly stated belief that NSA leadership was not actually interested in following the law or protecting the privacy of those it was monitoring.

 

 

Again, you are assuming that privacy is a freedom by itself. And again, if you do nothing wrong, why should you care if the government is looking at you while you are not doing anything wrong? 

 

The Supreme Court recognizes the Constitution as implicitly granting Americans the right to privacy.

 

 

No it does not. First of all, its the Bill of Rights that has set up some kind of vaguely defined privacy clauses that relate to certain amendments of the constitution. Second of all, the Supreme Court judges these things on a case by case basis. 

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

[Mr Saturn64 742]

I've said before that tech is the best and worst thing to ever happen to the world. This is the bad part. Criminals are easier off due to not needing to go anywhere or do something daring. But the number 1 factor hat contributes to cyberstalking: human stupidity. People post all their information on Facebook, Twitter, you name it. But it's just too much. Do you really want everyone to know this stuff?

"only two things are infinite; the univer and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the first" - Albert Einstein

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

No it does not. First of all, its the Bill of Rights that has set up some kind of vaguely defined privacy clauses that relate to certain amendments of the constitution. Second of all, the Supreme Court judges these things on a case by case basis. 

 

 

 

 

and I'll say it again... lolwut?

 

and yes, Gurning, it's Sutler in the movie.

[AkemiAzula 280]

The human factor is always the risk with any security law. If we could trust the government 100 percent we'd be cool with them having a constant wire connected to our brains telling them all our thoughts. The problem is that they are human, and as such we'd rather they were in China, or possibly Mars, at a conveniently safe distance from anything we might say or do, however legitimate.

 

But we have more to fear from evil as in terrorists and criminals than we do from the odd rogue FBI agent or one in a thousand government employee planning to abuse their power and tap into our conversations about what we had for breakfast or what our favourite movie star is.

 

The 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about' argument still seems the most rational. This law isn't for making sure our shoelaces are tied and our shirts tucked in fully. It's for keeping problem elements under observation so preventative measures can be taken against crimes before they are committed. 

 

It's logical progress

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

no, it's a logical fallacy. Y'see, we have a Constitution here. It clearly states:

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

It doesn't say anything about it being okay if you have done nothing wrong.

 

Now, maybe you have no knowledge of the tendency of governments to become tyrannies. That would be surprising, with you living in Europe and all. Hitler was democratically elected. What is legal today, like watching a movie featuring your favorite star, or being Jewish, may not be legal tomorrow. 

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson.

 

The long road of history is littered with nations and civilizations that were not destroyed by terrorism, but by the tyranny of those in power. They start by gathering information. Then they gather the guns. Later comes the gathering of the bodies.

 

We are seeing that the spying by the NSA and IRS wasn't some 'rogue employees' or 'one in a thousand' gov't minion. It was widespread, pervasive, and on orders from the top. It was detailed, programmed, and all done without any Constitutional justification. That is blatantly illegal under our founding principles. In a previous decade, jail sentences for all involved would be a given. It's thinking like yours that allows these egregious violations of our national conscience to not just go unpunished, but to continue.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

 

  The only "appropriate safeguard" is never collecting the data in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Which is functionally not possible in this day and age.   Back when telephones were hand cranked and required an actual switchboard operator, it was easy to eavesdrop but difficult to collect data.  It would have been time consuming.   Nowadays, the data I readily there for the capture.

 

I'm not talking about recording phone conversations.   The "metadata" as they call it is the phone numbers, date, time, length of call, location of callers, etc. 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court recognizes the Constitution as implicitly granting Americans the right to privacy.

 

 

Citation, please?

 

Nowhere does the word "privacy" appear in the Constitution.   and people see lots of "implicit" things in it.   Which court ruling are you referring to?

 

 

well, we could start with Roe v Wade.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Now, maybe you have no knowledge of the tendency of governments to become tyrannies. That would be surprising, with you living in Europe and all. Hitler was democratically elected. What is legal today, like watching a movie featuring your favorite star, or being Jewish, may not be legal tomorrow. 

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson.

 

The long road of history is littered with nations and civilizations that were not destroyed by terrorism, but by the tyranny of those in power. They start by gathering information. Then they gather the guns. Later comes the gathering of the bodies.

Hitler is kind of unique in the sense that he is one of the few dictators who got democratically voted into power. All the others are generally the result of some kind of coup or revolution. So no, history or experience does not support such a claim. 

 

Besides, it works the other way around just as much. Authoritarian governments also have tendency to be toppled over in favor of democratic governments, especially in this day and age. The Arab spring is just the most recent example of that, but you also have the entirety of Europe, which was all run by kings and tyrants a few centuries ago and are all functioning democracies right now. 

 

As for a governments ability to spy on its citizens, that too is something they could not effectively do until recently. It requires a highly developed information infrastructure, which has only been build over the last century or something. Before that, effective information gathering was simply not possible. Same goes for the guns, as the US is pretty much the only country where citizens have a constitutional right to own fire arms. 

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

you do know that the 'Arab Spring' is little more than a move towards Islamic theocracy, right? Egypt is a prime example, though you seem to have a large capacity for denial in that particular case.

[LexusInfernus 908]

you do know that the 'Arab Spring' is little more than a move towards Islamic theocracy, right? Egypt is a prime example, though you seem to have a large capacity for denial in that particular case.

No, the Arab spring was a massive movement to get those dictators out of office. Nowhere did they demonstrate for more Islam in the government. They did demonstrate for more democracy, more freedom and more economic reform. Thats it, it ends there. Now that some of those dictators are gone, there is a power vacuum, and indeed, some radical Islamic movements are seeking to fill that power vacuum with their own theocracies. And it remains to be seen if that will work, given that a lot of the protesters are not happy to see one secular dictator being replaced by next religious dictator. 

 

Besides, a theocracy might even be an improvement over what was there first. 

 

Furthermore, one must not confuse moderate Islamic parties as parties being focused on creating an Islamic theocratic state. Yes, they exist, just like not every Republican is bent on turning America into a Christian theocracy, and Christian Democrat parties in Europe are not bend on turning their respective European countries into a theocracy. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The current tendency in the Middle East towards more strict Islamic governance is a sign of the times.  Unfortunately for the would-be theocrats, there is simply too much good communication for that style of government to be set up.  Such theocracies depend on a largely ignorant and illiterate citizenry.  On the other hand, literacy, at least for males, is a tenet of Islam with schools attached to most mosques.

 

The attitude of the Muslim world towards women is a throwback of many centuries to the days when there was a matriarchal society.  You can see that even now in some strict Jewish families where inheritance is in the female line.  The Romans had a hidden matriarchy, the cult of the Mother, which was not only secret (sort of) but also allowed.  Many countries in the Med have this nasty left over in their history, and it is hard even in the west for women to achieve much.  Most of this attitude is prehistoric.  On the Christian side is the story of Eve and the Apple.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I doubt anyone sensible would want to be a tyrant in a world where even if you do the right thing and listen to your constituents and try to always act on their wishes you still receive death threats and hatemail constantly... Humans are a nasty lot for the most part, and anyone who wants to be their leader in a way that they will rebel against... Is asking for it.

 

My solution to this whole issue is make all the information publically available to anyone. That way we can see just what has been recorded, and we can also use it ourselves.

[LexusInfernus 908]

My solution to this whole issue is make all the information publically available to anyone. That way we can see just what has been recorded, and we can also use it ourselves.

The whole point was that people don't like it when the government knows these things about them, do you honestly believe it will suddenly be acceptable if EVERYONE knows those things? 

[hym 358]

 

My solution to this whole issue is make all the information publically available to anyone. That way we can see just what has been recorded, and we can also use it ourselves.

The whole point was that people don't like it when the government knows these things about them, do you honestly believe it will suddenly be acceptable if EVERYONE knows those things? 

 

 

The "problem" varies with the individual that one asks.  For some, the problem is that the government was collecting this information in the first place.  Others aren't upset that the information was being collected, but that the government didn't disclose that it was doing this.  Some feel betrayed that the "administration of transparency" has turned out to be no better than Bush (and some would argue it to be even worse).

[LexusInfernus 908]

The "problem" varies with the individual that one asks.  For some, the problem is that the government was collecting this information in the first place.  Others aren't upset that the information was being collected, but that the government didn't disclose that it was doing this.  Some feel betrayed that the "administration of transparency" has turned out to be no better than Bush (and some would argue it to be even worse).

And in non of those cases, making the information available for everyone to see will somehow make it better again. 

[Meg 368]

This from the contract employee who has declared himself to be the whistleblower on the telephone data collection.

 

"Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector. Anywhere. I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal email."

  

 

The government is supposed to be designed with checks and balances to keep a particular part from running amok.  Where are the checks and balances in this approach? 

 

The argument that you don't have to worry if you aren't doing anything wrong falls apart when it's subject to the whim of one person.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The old saw about the corruption of power applies.  On the other hand, does the average citizen really care?  Most people want the same things:  shelter and food.  The current economy specifies the method by which these may be achieved.  The communications revolution is drowning a lot of people in unwanted data.

 

The most important part of this whole scene is the integrity of the people running the surveillance show.  If they kept to their oath and the official secrets act, none of this would have come to light.  Someone is a traitor.