Skip to content, or skip to search.

Skip to content, or skip to search.

What Would Dirty Harry Do?

ShareThis

So as in Iraq, a manly-man high-handedness coupled with a kind of panicky CEO impatience has led to a wasteful, overpoliticized, self-defeating mess—arrogance becomes incompetence. They’ve made what may have been a good idea look dubious, and their lame justifications now make it look even worse. The legal defense is that President Bush has essentially unchecked power to gather foreign intelligence—anything goes in wartime.

Court-shmourt, warrant-shmorrant—that’s all just more liberal pussy talk. As Karl Rove put it the other day, “President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national-security interest to know who they’re calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree.” In fact, of course, no one disagrees. Rove and Bush are betting that they can win politically by defaulting, as always, to the binary caricature: Republican tough guys and Democratic wimps. If the rule of law is undermined in the process, well, too damned bad. Dirty Harry and 24’s Jack Bauer take legal shortcuts to get the bad guys, too, and they’re American heroes.

What may give pause to more Americans as they consider the electronic-privacy-versus-security issue is the Google porn-hunting case. The government subpoenaed every search query entered for two months last summer—literally thousands of my searches, all your searches, everyone’s searches—as part of its project to redraft a new, tenable version of the unconstitutional anti-online-pornography law. And Yahoo, MSN, and AOL complied.

More than 42 percent of all Internet users visited a pornographic site during one month last summer—which implies that a huge majority does so occasionally. And now all of them will have cause to think: First they came for the Muslims, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Muslim, and then they came for the porn hounds, and I didn’t speak up, because I—hey, wait a second, I am kind of a porn hound. “My neck hairs stood up when I heard the news,” a suburbanite father of three told me.

Today it’s only your (anonymous) searches they’re sifting—but what might some crusader subpoena tomorrow? The camel’s nose is under the tent. And the resulting queasiness might incline regular Joes to see a pattern of Bush-administration overreach that’s troubling both because it threatens to intrude on their privacy and because it’s unnecessary, dopey: Justice wants the data so that its hired academic statistician can prove that porn-filtering software isn’t totally effective. It is just the sort of intrusive, nanny-state boondoggle conservatives used to deride liberals for.

“It’s important that [Google] fight this,” says Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the (truly) conservative Cato Institute. “If we’re not careful, control and censorship of Internet data in this country could look more like China than we thought possible.”

Ah, China. “Our informal corporate motto,” Google’s Website brags, “is ‘Don’t be evil.’ ” How nice and simple and Web-utopian. Yet in order to do business in China, the big U.S. Internet companies have shown themselves willing to enable evil. Just last week, Google launched its new, censored, regime-friendly Chinese search service. Microsoft provides China special software with “banned word filters.” And in 2004, Yahoo gave the Chinese police the e-mail records of a writer who had posted, on a New York Website called Democracy Forum, a summary of a Communist Party memo concerning coverage of the fifteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen protests; he’s now serving a ten-year prison sentence.

Back in the mid-nineties, when the sci-fi future suddenly arrived—the Web, cell phones, GPS, tiny digital cameras—I remember feeling relief, and an almost providential sense of history unfolding in the right sequence, that Soviet totalitarianism had withered away in the nick of time. If the amazing modern digital apparatus had come along earlier and fallen into the wrong hands—the KGB, the East German Stasi—just imagine how the Big Brother nightmarishness could have been amped up . . .

It will be a great and tragic irony if, as China becomes economically Americanized, America becomes politically Chinafied. The odds are still good that the U.S. won’t be a police state a decade from now. But these new revelations are reminders that we really do need to fear fear itself, that paranoia can lead to panic and overreaction. I’m embarrassed to admit that a few days after September 11, 2001, when the man operating my regular falafel cart disappeared, I e-mailed the FBI’s tip-dump. What snitching and surveillance will we countenance if another attack kills thousands more Americans? And another, and another?

Before bin Laden’s followers make good on his new threats, we need to have a clear-eyed national conversation about the costs and benefits of accepting surveillance and sacrificing privacy, without defaulting to demagogic, black-and-white, Karl Rovean divisiveness (or its liberal equivalents). The unnecessary secrecy-exposé cycle of the NSA situation only makes that conversation more difficult to have right now. “Free people always [have] to decide where to draw the line between their liberty and their security,” a lucid expert testified to Congress in 2002. “Talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be.” The witness was General Michael Hayden, then director of the NSA, now deputy director of all U.S. intelligence.

E-mail: emailandersen@aol.com.


Related:

Advertising
Current Issue
Subscribe to New York
Subscribe

Give a Gift

Advertising