Patriotism v. privacy

Patriotism v. privacy
The right to acquire and discuss information is an American value

October 2, 2001

As Americans slowly grasp the idea that the "war on terrorism" will never be conclusively won, we’re also beginning to understand that the front line will always be on our own soil.

That will be a harder reality to accept. Our defense against terrorism won’t be a military shield against projectiles lobbed from afar. Even an impermeable border won’t protect us. The only protection we have against attacks from within is intensified scrutiny of everyone, including those of us who have enjoyed considerably freedom from governmental prying.

Now we’re faced with the need to balance privacy and patriotism, and in between lie concerns for our own safety. Those of us who aren’t terrorists know we pose no threat; we never have, so what probable cause could exist to invade our privacy? And yet, we want to make sure the government is keeping track of everyone else who boards planes and trains with us, inquires into pilot training or crop dusting, buys aviation maps or plastic explosives, expresses disapproval of our government’s interference in the Middle East.

Most of us are understanding about the inconveniences of cooperating, voluntarily, with tighter security measures. No one wants to be part of a doomed flight, and the footage of a plane slicing through a skyscraper will remain vivid in our memories for a long, long time.

There are more difficult decisions to be made, though. Should we allow the government access to lists of individuals who’ve bought or checked out books on bomb-making? On flying? On Islam? It’s a slippery slope. Most of us believe that a person’s reading material is his own business, and right now many of us who are appalled by the recent violence nevertheless are interested in reading about the circumstances that contributed to it.

How private should our communications be? Digital and cell technology have eliminated the fixed location once associated with telephone numbers. Free-mail accounts facilitate instantaneous international correspondence that is very difficult to trace. Many of us use those conveniences every day, for legitimate purposes; to restrict them is to restrict our economy. Yet there’s no denying their utility to terrorists.

Another question that’s bound to arise is the use of national identification cards, a tremendous aid in tracking the movements of people on whom the government might like to keep tabs. Again, that’s easier to support if the people in question are terrorists (who aren’t very likely to be forthcoming about their identities anyway), but the population in general shies away quickly, not because of guilty consciences but because that feels like an abrogation of the freedoms we’ve come to take for granted in this country.

These are questions that must be discussed in both ideological and practical terms, and we must find ways to frame the discussion without calling into question the patriotism of people who believe that a long-term loss of civil liberties is a victory for terrorism. Dividing loyal Americans into us v. them over national security is likely to cause deep scars on the national psyche.

The conflict between privacy and freedom of information was very much on American minds before Sept. 11. It will recede to the background for a while, because we all want the right people caught and punished, but the right of Americans to acquire information and discuss it freely is a fundamental one that should not fall to terrorist forces.