"THE CASE FOR PRIVACY ALWAYS COMES TOO LATE"

As a matter of historical analysis, the relationship between secrecy and privacy can be stated in an axiom: the defense of privacy follows, and never precedes, the emergence of new technologies for the exposure of secrets. In other words, the case for privacy always comes too late. The horse is out of the barn. The post office has opened your mail. Your photograph is on Facebook. Google already knows that, notwithstanding your demographic, you hate kale.

Jill Lepore, in her article in The New Yorker titled "The Annals of Surveillance," delves into the history of spying.  Though the ease and scope of surveillance grew enormously with the development of new technologies, spying has long been part of human history.  With the advent of literacy and mail delivery in one form or another, came the opportunity for outside scrutiny of letters that were intended to be private correspondence between sender and the person to whom the letter was addressed.   So it went, and so it goes, as communication technology expands and offers ever greater opportunities for spying.

Google, Facebook, email servers, internet service providers, and other sites on the internet know a great deal about me, as do government agencies whose services I use.  As I became part of online social networks, I gradually gave up any notion that what I wrote on the internet or spoke on a phone was private.  Thus, I was not surprised to learn that government spy agencies may be spying on me.  The technology is there, and it will be used, for good or for ill.  One reason Osama bin Laden managed to avoid capture for so many years was that he stopped communicating by phone and switched to couriers.

Since I subscribe to The New Yorker, I'm not certain Lepore's article is accessible to non-subscribers, but I recommend the piece to those of you who can read it, which I hope is everyone who so chooses.

STATEMENT OF CLARIFICATION

Just because I do not view Edward Snowden as a hero, and just because I was not surprised by the information revealed in the leaks, does not mean that I think the spying and collection of vast amounts of data by our government agencies, especially on its own citizens, is a good thing.

GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN ON THE NSA INVASION OF PRIVACY

You see, I'm still hung on this question of privacy.  First, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, et al., have as much if not more information on me than NSA does.  Same goes for Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, et al.  Is this not a gross invasion of my privacy?  Every online vendor knows what I've bought.  My bank knows when I've accessed my records on line.  They don't know how often I look at a printout of my statements, but they do know how long, when, and from where, I look on-line.  Have I given up my privacy to them, or should I be able to demand they not keep such records?

Exactly.  I'm puzzled by the surprise and anger.  A person who chooses to make use of the wonders of the technological revolution should know full well that private information is rather easily accessed.  Then, too, government agencies spying on Americans is hardly new.  The ways of obtaining private information are new and different.  Now it is possible to mine vast amounts of information, but one wonders if more is not less in the long run.  As Rmj says, if you are concerned about privacy, try to find an old typewriter, or, better yet, a fountain pen.

Whistleblowers who commit acts of civil disobedience and break laws, just or unjust, should know that consequences may follow.  People involved in the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans back in the 1960s were well aware of consequences, and they were willing to take the risks despite their knowledge of what might follow.  Must we all now assume, as a matter of course, that  no consequences will follow?

What Atrios at Eschaton says:

Haven't had a chance to dive into it fully, but my basic belief is that aside from civil liberties issues, the security/surveillance state industry is just a giant grift, a big scam there to enrich certain communities in Northern Virginia. That it is a net good is bullshit, that it makes us "safe" is bullshit, and that "making us safe," as opposed to perpetuating its own existence and fattening the wallets of its members and those that play along, has much to with anything that goes on is bullshit.

The "aside from civil liberties issues" most certainly concern me.

Besides, tell me the name of one politician who lost a bid for reelection because of a vote in favor of the Patriot Act.  Who among us is not complicit in the latest "scandal"?

When it comes to spying, those were the days.  Nowadays, it seems an incredibly boring undertaking.

UPDATE: Not to belabor the the matter under discussion, which, by the way, is being belabored over and over by print media and hyperventilating cable news hosts and their guests, whether bemoaning or praising Edward Snowden's actions, I believe David Simon introduces a note of sanity to the entire affair.  David's post and the large number of comments which follow, many of which Simon takes the trouble to give a response, are well worth reading.