They call this patriotism?
This strikes civil liberties groups as Orwellian. As with many other incursions against civil liberties, though, advocates of anti-privacy legislation say the laws are justified because of terrorist threats to the country.
The Patriot Act, says Ari Schwartz of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology, "is clearly number one" on the list of the Bush Administration's sins against privacy, while its utility against terror is much less clear.
And while the Patriot Act is the most high-profile example of the Bush administration's disregard for privacy, it is far from the only one, say privacy advocates.
Much of the Patriot Act--such as increased funding for border security--is innocuous. But hidden within it are numerous provisions that make the policy, in Schwartz's words, "the biggest threat to privacy since the 1970s."
Why the alarm bells? Powers to spy have been expanded while due process protections have been contracted. Consider the case of so-called "roving wiretaps," where law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation can record telephone or Internet activity at multiple sites. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI already had the ability to issue these wiretaps, but had to meet certain standards. First, the agency had to specify a suspect under surveillance and the phones or computers intended for monitoring. Second, it had to prove that the intended target of the investigation was actually using the particular phone or computer being tapped. Now, neither is the case, increasing fears that innocent people not under suspicion could have their conversations monitored without notification, without reasonable suspicion and without court approval.
Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the Patriot Act as an example of "ordered liberty" during a speech to the Federalist Society, saying also that "there have been no abuses" of the law. His Department of Justice has also launched a website <www.lifeandliberty.gov> to answer critics. But potential for abuse, civil libertarians say, remains high.
Privacy groups are also quick to remind that these fights aren't limited to being free of government surveillance. And besides sins of commission like increased spying authority, there have been sins of omission by the administration as well. The focus on surveillance issues sometimes obscures that Bush has done virtually nothing to protect people from commercial incursions on privacy interests, says Schwartz. "Because of this lack of focus, we still lack privacy laws that the rest of the world has," he says, including health privacy laws.
Data mining--the monitoring of patterns of individual use within vast commercial databases, to build detailed profiles of identified individuals--has continued unabated, with little if any action taken against it by the administration. And because technology continues to advance, Schwartz notes, these threats against the right to be let alone come quicker than ever.
Health privacy offers a point of comparison between the last two presidents. Under the rubric of the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Clinton administration launched protections for health privacy in the pipeline that were subverted after Bush took office.
This April was the first anniversary of the regulations coming into effect, the first truly comprehensive federal rules on health information privacy. But according to Janlori Goldman, director of the Health Privacy Project, "the Bush administration has shown a lack of commitment to protecting the privacy of Americans' medical information" in the law's inaugural year. The project gave the administration a failing grade during its first annual HIPAA Privacy Check-Up. "Bush made major changes [to health privacy rules] that weakened protections quite a bit," Schwartz says.
"The Bush administration's insistence on relying solely on consumer complaints to enforce the Privacy Rule is inadequate," asserts the Health Privacy Project's Privacy Check-Up. "Despite over 5,000 consumer complaints filed, not one civil penalty has been imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. And, dozens of criminal complaints have been referred to the Department of Justice, with no known penalties imposed." The project also highlights administration maneuvers that make it easier for drug companies to use sensitive personal information to market to consumers.
It is the domestic surveillance powers conferred upon law enforcement agencies that continue to dominate public debate. But many surveillance-related threats to privacy rights fly below radar. The administration, especially Attorney General John Ashcroft, has a wish list of expanded spying powers that critics have dubbed Patriot Act II, and many say that the administration has begun to surreptitiously implement that slate of policies step-by-step. A prime example is the routine appropriations bill that passed Congress in December 2003 almost without comment. Contained within H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Appropriations Act for 2004, are new rules permitting the FBI to survey once-private financial records from a wide array of businesses without a court order. Representative Ron Paul, R-Texas, dubbed this "a stealth enactment of the enormously unpopular 'Patriot II' legislation."
Privacy tights backers are concerned because this change, like parts of the first Patriot Act, allows expanded investigative powers without any oversight from the legislature or the judiciary.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||IV. Consumer Rights; USA Patriot Act|
|Date:||May 1, 2004|
|Previous Article:||Mad cow, mad policy.|
|Next Article:||White House for sale.|