Privacy in our Technologically Advanced Society

by Luke Wachob

In an unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court decided that police must acquire a search warrant prior to placing a tracking device on a drug suspect’s car. This decision is a victory for anyone interested in preserving the Constitution or protecting us from police powers, which have grown tremendously since George W. Bush’s presidency. An unwarranted tracking of a suspect’s car is essentially an unwarranted search of the individual, and threatens to infringe on our right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The justices were split on their reasons for how 4^th Amendment rights were violated by this process, indicating that there is still ample uncertainty surrounding modern tracking methods.

 I still want to know what degree of electronic tracking is considered permissible, and the Court didn’t really answer that. I’m glad they said this was an overreach, but what if the tracking was done without a physical device being attached to the car? What are the parameters for tracking a person by their cell phone? The technological possibilities of the age raise new questions that likely neither Congress nor the Court is capable of resolving, but as Congress has plunged ahead anyway with things like the PATRIOT Act, the Court has to serve its role to check the powers that violate our Constitutional rights as best it can. This unanimous ruling affirms our 4^th Amendment rights, but they’re being violated in many other places. Hopefully the Court will continue to take on 4^th Amendment cases to clarify the role of electronic surveillance and tracking in our country.

Why Government Funding Shouldn't Be The Answer To Everything, Or Even Most Things

by Joe Rudmin, advisor to Madison Liberty

Government funding of any enterprise, whether radio broadcasting, or transportation, or education interrupts the feedback mechanisms of free exchange in our economy, ultimately destroying that enterprise.  An economy is people doing things for each other, and money is a tool whereby those who receive goods and services let the providers know whether they are satisfied.  If the government funds an enterprise, then the government provides at least part of that feedback.  So, the enterprise then starts responding to the desires of those running the government.  Those making the funding decisions almost always encompass a very few individuals.  In no way can those few individuals know the needs and wants of all those receiving the service, nor should they.  We celebrate diversity of opinion and taste.  That is why letters to the editor so often complain of bias in some particular brand of media, whether the complaint of left bias in NPR, or right bias in Fox News.  This bias is reflected not only in opinions that are aired, but in priorities of what type of programming is offered.  In general, if you don't like the bias of a station, you will change stations.  There are many stations which serve a particular niche, thus serving a diversity of opinions and tastes.  If a station serves too narrow a clientele, it usually disappears.  At least it is not likely to outlive its biggest benefactors.  However, government funding has no such limits in extent or time.  Government survival depends on force and threat of force, not on serving anyone.  Even with democracy, the feedback mechanism is very blunt.  An issue such as broadcast quality is overwhelmed in concerns about more pressing issues.  So, government funding impedes good service in an enterprise.  Examples of corruption and failure to provide good service NEVER inspire government to withdraw from interfering in an enterprise.  Rather, they inspire government to impose regulations and requirements on the entire enterprise, further strangling those who provide service to those NOT served by the government.  Eventually, the school system turns out idiots who have wasted years of their lives, or the highway system ends in total gridlock, or the internet ends up as pure propaganda.  Those in government find that situation attractive, because no longer does the failure of government have a success in free enterprise for comparison.  Those running the government prefer to tightly grasp power than to allow people to enjoy prosperity, peace, and diversity of taste.

A Step in the Wrong Direction

by Helen Shibut

President Obama recently signed the National Defense Authorization Act which gives the president the power to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial if they are accused of terrorism.  Clearly, this is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment right to “a speedy and public trial.” But as we know, this is hardly the first time our government has passed laws that undermine our freedom.  Jonathan Turley’s recent article “10 reasons the U.S. is longer the land of the free” describes other legislation and compares it to that of other countries (you can find it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html). 

Politicians justify laws like the National Defense Authorization Act by saying that they are in place to protect Americans.  It is likely that these laws do indeed make some citizens feel marginally safer—for a time.  But ultimately these laws just make it more difficult for Americans to defend themselves against government overreach.  Benjamin Franklin wrote “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I believe we do deserve liberty and safety, so I hope that our politicians soon repeal this law and others that present such clear threats to American liberty.