[CMichael]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003886

This is by Robert Bork. It's long but worth it.

[Erik]

An interesting read.

[Chris Rhines]

Bork seems to hold to the opinion that the individual has no rights other than the ones that the government sees fit to grant him, and that those rights can be amended or revoked through some nebulous 'due process.'

- Chris

[PenHolder]

One interesting section is his treatment of the Total, I mean Terrorist, Information Awareness system. He contends that it really hasn't been given a fair shake, and that such a system could perhaps be kept from gravitating towards an Orwellian end by enacting technical and procedural barriers to prevent the end-users from abusing it.

One problem I have with that is still its potential for abuse. Once the machinery is in place, and people and organizations become accustomed to having their information and transactions flowing through it, it's a relatively small administrative manner to come back and change the specific of how it's used. It seems positively ripe for "mission creep", similar to the NICS "instant check" system (which isn't gun owner registration, since it doesn't keep records of approved transactions. Right?)

Ironically, Robert Bork himself was the target of an attempted smear using some of his not-so-private video rental information history, which led to the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) of 1988. (See http://www.epic.org/privacy/vppa/.)

Rather than having my information promiscuously bandied about, with the hope that narrow "Band-Aid" legislation (such as the VPPA) will come along address a few of the most prominent abuses after the fact, I'd prefer a "fail-secure" type of system where information is shared on a need-to-know basis only. I'm not implying that we really have such a choice to make; personal privacy is already largely dead, and we (through our market) killed it. I think the VPPA response was actually pretty funny; my guess is, some of the congresscritters were a little self-concious with their own selection of "private viewing material".

Additionally, while the initial proposals call for wholesale integration of (questionably accurate?) commercial databases, with the establishment of a government database comes the worry that more regulations will be passed in the future requiring information to be submitted to it, in order to make it more effective, leading to yet more deterioration of privacy. Any terrorist or serious criminal worth their salt these days will be smart enough to avoid electronic commerce and use cash to avoid leaving a paper trail; making the system mandatory is a logical step towards addressing the "cash loophole". (The Cash Transaction Reporting laws come to mind.)

Yes, I'm good at worrying. No, I haven't read the TIA proposal-of-the-month in depth. Even if TIA isn't allowed to go forward, it's just as likely this function will be handled through contracts with private industry.

I simply don't trust my government -- or anyone, really, but the government is the biggest fish in the pond -- with all of the mundane details of my life. The main problem with raw information is, once you give it out, you can't take it back.

-PH

*checks to make sure the black helicopters haven't noticed him sneaking new rolls of tinfoil into his basement with his tactical underwear stockpile*

[CMichael]

Bork seems to hold to the opinion that the individual has no rights other than the ones that the government sees fit to grant him, and that those rights can be amended or revoked through some nebulous 'due process

How did you get that from the article Erik?