[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Feb. 22 column - privacy, long version
--- begin forwarded text
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:28:11 -0700
X-Sender: [email protected]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:25:09 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Vin Suprynowicz)
Subject: Feb. 22 column - privacy, long version
Resent-From: [email protected]
X-Mailing-List: <[email protected]> archive/latest/440
X-Loop: [email protected]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [email protected]
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
EDITORS NOTE: This is the longer version of "privacy," at 2,900 words.
A shorter, 2,400-word version also moves.
A VERSION of this essay originally appeared in "Las Vegas" magazine.
FOR EMBARGOED RELEASE DATED FEB. 22, 1998
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Big Brother wants your number
The New York Times is generally in editorial favor of any government
intervention you can name. Most would agree it is the furthest thing from a
marketplace of paranoid, feds-are-out-to-get-us conspiracy theories.
Even Times columnist William Safire is hardly a true Libertarian -- Mr.
Safire still believes "No sensible passenger minds the frisking for bombs
at airports."
(I guess I'm not very sensible; it seems to me anyone who has ever put
any real effort into getting around such Fred-and-Ethel security screens
has succeeded, while the REAL target of all the sniffing and scanning
appears to be the now-prohibited transport of tax-free agricultural
extracts and untaxed currency.)
Anyway, more significant than what Mr. Safire actually wrote for
publication on Jan. 8, 1998, is where it was published: America's
pro-government paper of record, The New York Times.
Mr. Safire warned, in part:
"WASHINGTON -- Your right to privacy has been stripped away. You cannot
walk into your bank, or apply for a job, or access your personal computer,
without undergoing the scrutiny of strangers. You cannot use a credit card
to buy clothes to cover your body without baring your soul. Big Brother is
watching as never before.
"Encouraged by an act of Congress, Texas and California now demand
thumbprints of applicants for drivers' licenses -- treating all drivers as
potential criminals.
"Using a phony excuse about airplane security, airlines now demand
identification like those licenses to make sure passengers don't exchange
tickets to beat the company's rate-cutting promotions.
"In the much-applauded pursuit of deadbeat dads, the Feds now demand that
all employers inform the government of every new hire, thereby building a
data base of who is working for whom that would be the envy of the KGB. ...
"Hooked on easy borrowing, consumers turn to plastic for their purchases,
making records and sending electronic signals to telemarketers who track
them down at home. ...
"Enough.
"Fear of crime and terrorism has caused us to let down our guard against
excessive intrusion into the lives of the law-abiding. ... But doesn't this
creeping confluence of government snooping, commercial tracking and
cultural tolerance of eavesdropping threaten each individual American's
personal freedom? And isn't it time to reverse that terrible trend toward
national nakedness before it replaces privacy as an American value? ..."
Unfortunately, Mr. Safire stopped short, in that January column, of
calling for an end to government "ID cards" of any sort, an end to
mis-labeled "airport security" checkpoints, an end to the very "War on
Drugs" under which most of these new interventions have been justified.
He also ran the risk of diverting attention from the government as the
major culprit here, by treating as equally culpable the kind of folks who
collate data from warranty cards -- hardly the folks who have the right to
raid your home and throw you in jail if they don't like what they find.
(On my list of things that concern me, my supermarket knowing what brand
of catfood I prefer still ranks somewhat below armed government agents
tracking where I travel, and how much cash I carry.)
Finally, Mr. Safire suggest that we "Pay cash," which is harder to track.
That advice might be fine, if the very pattern of abuses Mr. Safire
catalogs wasn't moving us rapidly toward the ballyhooed "cashless
society."
Already, the old $500 and $1,000 bills are nowhere to be found, and those
trying to withdraw more than $5,000 from their own savings accounts to buy
a used car or other large-ticket item find themselves being grilled by
their own government-regulated bankers -- amateur surrogates for the DEA
and IRS -- like so many money-laundering drug-dealers.
A rogue candidate
That so-called "cashless society" is frequently on the mind of Aaron
Russo, former producer of such Hollywood films as "Trading Places" and "The
Rose," now running an iconoclastic long-shot 1998 GOP primary campaign
against Kenny Guinn -- former head warden of the Las Vegas government
schools and hand-picked anointee of the casino bosses -- for the
governorship of Nevada.
Russo is campaigning on such populist issues as eliminating state
privilege taxes (so that car registration costs in Nevada would be limited
to "$35 and not one penny more" -- rather than surging upwards based on
blue-book value) and his vow to sue the federal government to fight the
taxation of Nevadans' "estimated" tips as income.
But Russo has also includes in his platform opposition to such federal
steps as the wiring of all telephones for tapping (already authorized under
House Resolution 4922, which passed on Jan. 25, 1994), and the
aforementioned national law requiring all states to issue drivers' licenses
with thumbprints or other personalized "biometric" ID tags to serve as a
"national ID cards."
Those stances have gained Russo the sobriquet of a "federal paranoiac"
from one well-established Nevada political columnist, who coincidentally
does not appear to have ever met a new tax he didn't think those in power
should have the "courage" to enact.
"In my view, the wiretaps are authorized under a federal regulation, and
they cannot impose any federal regulations on any of the states," said
Russo, in between passing out cards to well-wishers during Sunday lunch at
the Celebrity Deli, on Flamingo near Maryland, as we took a break from an
afternoon watching the NFL playoff games ... liberally sprinkled with
$150,000 in TV campaign ads which Russo had bought in the one-week New
Year's period, just to put the opposition on notice that he's in the game.
"The governor has the authority to go to the Supreme Court, and the
Supreme Court has to hear the case. You have something to stand on. A
senator or congressman needs other people to work with him. But in a
dispute between the feds and a state, the Supreme Court has the only
jurisdiction," says Russo, in the Brooklyn accent he has never shed. "So we
wouldn't have to go through the 9th District (Court of Appeals), like
anyone else. A governor can stop federal agents from coming into his state
to enforce these things; they need the permission of the individual county
sheriffs to try and enforce these laws within the state."
I pointed out to Russo that skeptics will claim HR 4922 creates no actual
new wiretaps; it merely puts phone companies and others on notice that they
must wire their systems in such a way that federal agents can come in and
tap lines, if necessary, "pursuant to a court order or other lawful
authorization."
"Then why, if it's only by court order the way it should be, does it say,
'or other lawful authorization'?" Russo asks, between bites of the corned
beef and pastrami. "That means any cop can request it," the same way your
bank account can now be frozen and levied with a mere letter from an IRS
agent -- no court order required.
"Uri Dowbenko wrote a piece on this for the National Review; call him up."
Russo obligingly supplied a copy of the federal law, which requires the
attorney general to tell congress how many "communication interceptions,
pen registers, and trap and trace devices" federal agents expect to need in
the next four years. A dutiful subordinate of Attorney General Janet Reno,
FBI Director "Louis Freeh has told Congress he needs money to tap 1.5
million phones simultaneously," Russo says.
"The worst part of the federal ID card is not the card itself but what's
going to come out of it," candidate Russo adds, segueing without drawing a
breath into the other federal intervention that gets his goat. "The ID card
and the debit card merging; getting rid of cash. Everything will be on the
card. Every time you go buy something, they'll know what books you read,
what tapes you rent.
"They'll debit your Social Security tax payments automatically. You'll
have no more cash. Cash will be gone; it will be illegal; you won't be able
to hide any more money in your mattress. And as Ross Perot pointed out, the
current Clinton budget will eventually mean an 82 percent tax rate" to
cover expanding welfare programs.
"If they freeze your card, you can't buy food; you can't pay a lawyer. If
they can assume how much money a waitress should make in tips, and tax that
amount, then they can assume how much you make, and tax the amount they
assume you should be making. And at that point you're a slave. You are a
slave."
Digital fingerprinting
Central in organizing resistance to the national ID card to which Russo
refers is the Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprint Law, at 5446 Peachtree
Industrial Boulevard, Suite 133, Atlanta, GA 30341, telephone 404-250-8105.
The group's web site is at http://www.atlantainfoguide/repeal/.
Posted there is an article by Cyndee Parker - self-described Georgia
"housewife turned activist, because no one else was doing anything about
it" - which begins: "In September of 1996, President Clinton signed into
law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996. Buried at approximately page 650 of the new National Defense Bill,
also known as Public Law 104-208, Part B, Title IV, the American public was
given a national ID card. With no fanfare, no publicity and no scrutiny,
the bill easily avoided the watchful eyes of even its most aggressive
opponents. ...
"In Section 401-403, pilot programs have been initiated by the U.S.
Attorney General, one of which is the 'Machine Readable Document Pilot
Program.' In this particular program, employers would have to 'procure' a
document reader linked to the federal government's Social Security
Administration in order to have the potential employee swipe their new
drive's license/national ID card through the reader. Then it would be up to
the federal government to either approve or disapprove the applicant for
employment. ...
Additionally, Section 656 of the new law states that "after October 1,
2000, Federal agencies may only accept as proof of identity driver's
licenses that conform to standards developed by the Secretary of the
Treasury," after consultation with state motor vehicle officials and the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. "The AAMVA sees
digital fingerprinting as the best way to go in driver's license
identifiers," Ms. Parker reports.
Parker quotes Dick Armey, R-Tex., calling the move "an abomination and
wholly at odds with the American tradition of individual freedom." Jack
Kemp told the New York Times this was "an anti-privacy, anti-business and
anti-American approach." Of course, Parker adds, "all this was said before
the bills were snuck through in the last defense bill. ... For the first
time in American history and reminiscent of Communist countries, our
government would have the ability to grant approval before a private
company enters into private employment contracts with private citizens,"
all justified as necessary to ban illegal immigrants from the workplace,
and to track down "deadbeat dads" delinquent on their child-support
payments.
Your number, please?
A sister law is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, now Public Law 104-193, approved by the
"Conservative Republican
Congress" on July 23, 1996, and signed into law by President Clinton on
Aug. 22, 1996.
Public Law 104-193 requires that, as a condition for receipt of federal
"Child Support" and "Aid to Families With Dependent Children" funding, each
state must implement federally-defined citizen locating and tracking
measures, and specifically authorizes the use of Social Security numbers
in a new biometric identity card ("biometric" referring to individualized
digital fingerprints, retinal scans, and so forth) for NON-drivers.
Of special note in that bill are Section 313, the "State directory of new
hires," which Ms. Parker summarizes as "all new employees to be databased
with nationwide multiple agency sharing of personal information. ... felony
conspiracy charges for employers not reporting."
Section 316, the "Expansion of the Federal Parent Locator Service" then
gives us "Employee assets and debts to be databased. Secretary of the
Treasury to have access to database."
And that one's followed by Section 317, "Collection and use of Social
Security numbers for use in child support enforcement," which Ms. Parker
summarizes as "All applications for professional licenses, occupational,
drivers and marriage licenses to include Social Security numbers. Formerly
illegal as an invasion of privacy under the Privacy Act of 1974, USC Title
5, Section 552a."
Uri Dowbenko did indeed look up all this stuff for his article in the
Oct. 13, 1997 National Review, as candidate Russo reported. And Dowbenko
confirms Cyndee Parker's reading of these laws, adding:
"There is also a stipulation for the development of
'counterfeit-resistant Social Security cards,' implying the use of
biometric data like fingerprints and/or retinal scans. This is not sci-fi,
folks, it's the law."
'Resistance will spread'
As Mr. Safire of the Times reports, several states have already moved to
comply with the new federal requirements -- some picking up federal "pilot
program" funding for their efforts.
"The new driver's license requirement mandating fingerprints for Georgia
drivers and those wanting ID cards passed the state Legislature with
virtually no public or media attention in April of 1996," Cyndee Parker
reports from Atlanta. "The first known announcement was on the local
Atlanta news announcing an October 1996 date to begin fingerprinting."
Since then, efforts to repeal the Georgia fingerprinting law have been
blocked by inspired procedural maneuvering on the part of the leadership of
the Georgia state Legislature.
Bobby Franklin is a first-term member of the Georgia House of
Representatives from District 39, in Marietta. Marietta is in Cobb County,
home of Kennesaw, which recently and famously reacted to firearm bans
elsewhere by passing a law which requires every head of household to own a
gun.
"And the crime rate immediately dropped, and stayed down, which you will
not see covered in the national news, because that's something they do not
want you to know," laughed Rep. Franklin when I reached him at his home on
a Monday night in early January.
But I was calling Franklin about the fingerprint law.
"They did that here back in '96, on the last day of the session. I was
not in the House then; I was elected in '96. So we tried last year to
repeal the measure. We had several bills that were introduced, we were
promised by the chairman of the committee that it would be let out so it
could be voted on by the whole house. ..."
Needless to say, that did not happen.
"The (state) Senate amended to remove the fingerprints, and we missed
upholding that by one vote.
"I know in Alabama, their department of public safety said last year,
they just up and said, 'Hey guys, we're fingerprinting.' And there was such
a public outcry against it that the department backed down and they're not
fingerprinting. And we're very close to repealing, here. Our two major
Republican candidates for governor this year are both saying they will
issue an executive order banning our Motor Vehicle Department from
fingerprinting."
At which point, won't they just substitute retinal scans, or something
else to meet the federal requirement, I ask Franklin. After all, no state
wants its residents cut off from all those fine, federal benefits as of the
year 2000.
"Our draft legislation says they're not allowed to use (start
ital)any(end ital) biometric identifiers. We hope if we can block it in
Georgia it will spread, that we can prevent them from instituting their
program, that resistance will spread. No one wants to be chattel. If we're
treated like a number, we're property."
Alabama "was basically a pilot program, from what I understood. They
threw out a trial balloon to see how it would go, and they got slammed, so
they backed away from it."
On June 19, 1997, Congressman Bob Schaffer rose to the floor of the House
of Representatives in Washington, and read into the record Colorado Joint
House Resolution 97-1027 (passed unanimously in the state Senate, and by a
vote of 59-6 in the House): "Resolved ... that we, the members of the
Sixty-first General Assembly urge the Congress of the United States to
amend or repeal those specific provisions of the federal Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 set forth in
this Resolution that place undue burden and expense upon the several
states, that violate provisions of the Constitution of the United States,
that impose insufficiently funded mandates upon the states in the
establishment, modification, and enforcement of child support obligations,
or that unjustifiably intrude into the personal lives of the law-abiding
citizens of the United States of America."
Resistance IS spreading.
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers," is due from
Huntington Press in May, 1998. Readers may contact him via e-mail at
[email protected]. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at
http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United
States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas
Nev. 89127.
***
Vin Suprynowicz, [email protected]
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
--- end forwarded text
-----------------
Robert Hettinga ([email protected]), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/
Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>