Former Congressman Fuels "Big Brother" Fears

Americans are being scared into compromising their own safety, and Bob Barr is doing the scaring. As Barr has discovered, nothing is more effective at whipping alleged privacy fears into anti-government frenzy than inflammatory warnings that “Big Brother is watching.” Barr, a former Georgia Republican congressman and U.S. Attorney contributed an OpEd piece to today’s Washington Times that contained a torrent of fear-inducing comparisons between Tony Blair’s and Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to install thousands of surveillance cameras throughout London and New York with George Orwell’s “1984 ” and philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon society. According to Barr, Americans have much to fear from governments at all levels that place great emphasis on the need for surveillance cameras as a solution for ensuring safety.

According to Barr’s dire warnings, we must not allow America to become a land where, as in Bentham’s Panopticon, “control was exercised not by being surveilled continuously but by each person knowing they might be under surveillance at any time, or all the time.” Barr was a U.S. Attorney, and as such one would assume that at some point he attended law school. Apparently Barr missed the course where privacy in public places was discussed, because his OpEd piece, “Big Brother in the Big Apple,” was long on exaggeration and incongruous conspiratorial comparisons to Orwell but short on facts or for that matter, the truth about London’s and New York’s surveillance systems.

No surveillance system is perfect, and despite conspiracy-fueling television or movie depictions they are not installed in every hallway or room in any city. It is important to separate the fear mongering from fact: in London and New York there are no cameras in private areas, such as restrooms or dressing rooms where by law one is granted a reasonable expectation of privacy. Private establishments such as a business or doctor’s waiting room are mandated to post signs indicating the presence of closed circuit TV cameras. Those who do not wish to be on camera in such areas are not required to stay. The cameras that Barr and privacy rights activists condemn are located in public places, such as malls, city streets, tourist attractions, and other areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Ironically, Barr, a former congressman, is more afraid of government cameras monitoring public areas than he is of terrorist cells in the planning phase monitoring those same public areas for vulnerabilities.

Major tourist attractions such as Disney World have utilized closed circuit TV surveillance for many years, with great success. Signs are posted at the entrances to such theme parks advising that visitors will be surveilled. Bags are checked, certain items are banned, all in the name of security. Would Barr prefer to visit Disney World in today’s age of terrorism without these security measures in place? Reasonable people are glad that steps are taken to protect them while they visit attractive terrorist targets, and like it or not, the streets of our major cities are lined by such targets, whether they are historical sites, government buildings, or financial nerve centers of the global economy.

The key to such security measures is simple: if you are not a criminal or a terrorist, you should not be bothered by the fact that when in public you may be on camera. If you wanted to do something that you wouldn’t want anyone else to see, wouldn’t you find somewhere private to do it off camera?

Barr avoids this entire issue by focusing his OpEd on a baseless argument that “government at all levels convinces a fearful populace that a surveilled society is a safe society.” Having worked in the private sector and the federal government I can assure Barr that no promises are given by government that any security measures are guaranteed to produce “a safe society.” There are thousands of government attorneys at all levels whose duty is to make certain that government never guarantees anything, because it if fails to deliver on its promises, it would be ripe for lawsuits. Government certainly extols the virtues of camera surveillance systems, particularly for their role in identifying pre-operational surveillance conducted by criminals and terrorist groups or providing investigative leads after attacks that lead to identifying and arresting the suspects, like the London Tube bombers in 2005. Yet at no time has government stated that installing cameras will make us completely safe.

Terrorists never strike at random, and cell operatives must physically visit and evaluate potential targets, usually taking many photos and lingering in the area engaged in seemingly innocent behaviors. It is only through careful monitoring by law enforcement and intelligence specialists and reviews of surveillance footage that pre-operational planning and descriptions of the suspects are gleaned and plots thwarted or pieced together after the fact.

The point of video surveillance in public areas is not to guarantee safety but to deter criminals and more specifically terrorists from choosing those areas for attack. Like criminals, terrorists often seek out targets that offer the least resistance. A home with an ADT or Brinks security sign posted in the yard is far less likely to be burglarized than a home where no such system is visible. That same principle applies to counterterrorism and anti-crime security measures in the public areas of our major cities.

Barr would like to live in a world where only specific political buildings, such as government symbols in Washington, DC were targets. The reality of our age, however, is that every American city is home to scores of potentially attractive terrorist targets ranging from financial centers, defense industry companies, and natural resource facilities, to local malls, swanky restaurants, and as the thwarted London bomb plot in July should have made clear, even unsuspecting nightclubs. All of these targets share one important commonality: all are surrounded by public areas, streets, parking lots, and parks where there is no expectation of privacy. Installing cameras in those areas would make terrorist pre-operational planning and target surveillance much more difficult and increase the risk of detection. The only “right” violated by such cameras is the terrorist’s “right” to conduct his pre-attack target surveillance without the fear of being caught.

Barr exposed his own Orwellian conspiracy fears throughout his OpEd piece, but nowhere more clearly than in these lines:

Of course, the notion that surveillance is key to control was not new with Bentham; centuries before, the Greek philosopher Plato had mused about the power of the government to control through surveillance, when he raised the still-relevant question, "Who watches the watchers?"

More recently, of course, George Orwell gave voice to the innate fear that resides deep in many of our psyches against government surveillance, in his nightmare, "Big Brother is Watching You" world of the novel "1984."

…Mayor Bloomberg and former Prime Minister Blair epitomize the almost mindless, unquestioning embrace of surveillance as the solution to problems — real, manufactured or exaggerated — that pervades government post-September 11, 2001. Fear of terrorism as much as fear of crime is the currency by which government at all levels convinces a fearful populace that a surveilled society is a safe society.

Barr’s reference to “the innate fear that resides deep in many of our psyches against government surveillance,” was telling. He raised a fear all too commonly cited by opponents of government video surveillance systems, Plato’s “who is watching the watchers?” This question is a conundrum because if taken to its logical conclusion, no one anywhere at any level could be trusted. For if there are watchers watching the watchers, who watches the watchers’ watchers? Where does it end? With Barr, fear of so-called privacy violation is the currency by which privacy rights activists convince a fearful minority of the populace that government at all levels, rather than terrorists, is our enemy.

I understand suspicion of government. Clearly government has grown to exert influence in aspects of our businesses and lives into which it was never meant to encroach. That is our fault as citizens, as government excesses are the result of voter apathy and could be reigned in by a more informed and involved populace. However, this alleged concern over who is watching the watchers when it comes to government video surveillance in public areas is misguided. The watchers observe only public behavior that they could witness if they were seated on a park bench watching crowds pass by them. The fact that they sit in a control room instead of a park bench should make no difference. They are not watching citizens engaged in any private behaviors or in intimate settings, thus it is difficult to pinpoint precisely what Barr fears he will be observed doing by these “Big Brother” public surveillance systems. Like most privacy advocates, Barr cannot offer one example of how his privacy would be violated by a surveillance system in a public area or explain what liberties or freedoms he would lose while on camera.

Americans have been filmed burning the flag, making obscene finger gestures at the president, and similar behaviors and these have been protected as “free speech.” Cameras do not curb political protest or freedom of expression. Barr should speak with any political action group and ask whether they prefer to demonstrate in front of cameras or in useless anonymity off camera. Obviously they seek out cameras and attention, and have no fear of voicing their opinions in public. What freedoms would Barr lose with the presence of public surveillance cameras? He left the answer to that question out of his OpEd piece because the answer would have rendered his fear mongering unnecessary.

Barr may have couched his argument in anti-government rhetoric about privacy, but it seemed that his real concern may have been that New York will one day follow London’s example and use cameras to identify traffic violators and issue fines or tickets. I reiterate my previous point that government excesses are the fault of voter apathy. Americans have expressed overwhelming support for London and New York-style surveillance camera systems in public areas to help protect us from terrorists, and if we do not want those systems to be used for other purposes like traffic fines then we must exercise control over government and restrict its reach.

In the meantime, I will continue to visit historic sites, tourist attractions, government buildings, and financial centers knowing that I am on camera and not bothered at all by that fact. After all, in public it is always a wise personal safety tactic to assume you are being watched. I am glad that our cities are making terrorists more conscious of that fact. If I am being watched in public, so are the planners of a potential attack. I am confident that “the watchers” will differentiate between us. Unless Barr plans to engage in criminal or terrorist pre-operational surveillance in a public area, the only thing he needs to fear with cameras is his fear itself.

Technorati Tags:
Bob Barr, Big Brother, Michael Bloomberg, Surveillance Cameras, CCTV, Privacy Rights, Terrorist Surveillance, New York, London

"No one dare attack our sacred land": Iran FM's Claim Challenges Relevance of Britain, U.S. as World Powers

One week ago today, the Iranian Navy seized 15 British Navy personnel engaged in searching for smugglers in Iraqi waters. Despite GPS evidence presented by the British government that clearly indicated the British crew was well within established Iraqi waters, Iranian leaders have refused to release the hostages, whom they insist were captured in Iranian territorial waters. Ignoring Geneva Convention policies and British warnings not to do so, the Iranian government produced and distributed videotaped “confessions” in which the hostages “admit” they were in Iranian waters illegally when they were captured. Iran also floated the possibility that the lone female hostage would be released, but has subsequently rescinded that gesture. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki now insists that Britain must apologize for instigating the incident, and suggested that the hostages may yet be tried in Tehran on charges of espionage. The outcome of such a show trial is not difficult to imagine. Espionage is a capital offense under Iran’s version of Sharia law.

What steps have Britain and the UN taken to resolve this critical situation? Tony Blair demanded the release of the hostages, to which demands Iran responded with increased rhetoric and blunt refusals to comply. To add insult to injury, Iran released to the media a letter allegedly written by female hostage Seaman Faye Turney, in which Turney robotically asks her government to withdraw troops from Iraq. Tony Blair became “livid” at the Iranian attempt to dictate British foreign policy, the refusal to release the hostages, and the obviously forced confessions (hint to future Iranian fake confession writers: British citizens refer to their Parliamentary representatives as MPs, not “representatives”). Blair requested that the UN Security Council condemn Iran for the seizure and issue a resolution calling upon Iran to immediately release the British crew.

In a pathetic display of its own irrelevancy, the UN Security Council, at the behest of such stalwart defenders of international law as Russia, could not agree on issuing a call for the immediate release of the hostages. The UK Times Online reported:

The UN Security Council, voicing “grave concern”, meanwhile called on Iran to allow consular access to the detained British naval personnel and urged “an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15”.

Britain originally asked for a tougher three-sentence statement to “deplore” the detention of the British personnel and “support calls” for their immediate release, but this was blocked by Russia and several other members.

“We will not be able to accept a call for the immediate release of the 15 UK naval personnel,” Vitaly Churkin, Russian’s UN envoy, declared during the debate.

The final two-sentence statement was read to the press outside the Security Council chamber, making it weaker than a formal declaration.

Apparently “grave concern” is the extent of the Security Council’s reaction to what under international law is an act of war: forced boarding of a vessel under flag of a recognized nation, compounded by taking uniformed military personnel of a sovereign nation hostage. Whatever one thinks of President Bush personally or politically, it is clear he was justified in his blunt warning to the UN that if it did not take action against Saddam Hussein after 14 of its resolutions had been ignored it would become an irrelevant organization in world affairs. Unfortunately, terrorists have paid close attention to the UN’s reactions to provocations and Iran clearly determined that President Bush was right about the UN’s irrelevancy. Hence the brazen taking of British hostages with little concern that any nations other than Britain and the U.S. would be inclined to interfere.

The west has a tendency to underestimate radical Islamic nations like Iran, whether out of a sense of cultural superiority or sheer ignorance. Iran has proven itself an astute observer of internal politics in America and Britain and has calculated that neither government has the political unity necessary to mount an effective response to this hostage incident. The political climate in America has become so acidic that Iran is certain America will not respond militarily to this provocation against our closest ally.

Democrats begging for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and impeachment of President Bush should consider carefully the words of Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki:

To a question on probable US military attack on Iran, he said the Americans are now engaged in domestic issues and are not in a position to enter into another crisis.

"No one dare to attack our sacred land," he said.

“Engaged in domestic issues” is a euphemism for blind bush hatred in Congress. Non-binding resolutions criticizing the new “surge” in Iraq; over dramatized investigations into U.S. Attorney firings the President was constitutionally empowered to conduct; adding non-military pork funding to the Iraq War appropriations bill; and inserting ill-advised provisions into that bill to establish a withdrawal date from Iraq are precisely the “domestic issues” Mottaki and the Mullahs count on to tie the hands of our Commander in Chief. Conservative radio hosts and bloggers frequently use the term “embolden our enemies” when referring to the effects of the Democrat controlled Congress’s efforts to shackle President Bush’s executive war powers. Mottaki’s comments are proof that our enemies are indeed emboldened by this Congress and that bravado resulted in the hostage incident now upon us.

Britain is in a less rancorous but equally tenuous political position, as Prime Minister Blair is in effect a lame-duck leader until replaced in the next UK election. His liberal party has cut military expenditures so significantly during his tenure that France now has a larger Navy than Britain, which once ruled the seas. In fact, Belgium’s navy is now approximately the same size as Britain’s. Britain has been slowly reducing its military presence in Iraq, and other than typical criminal investigations did virtually nothing in response to the London Subway bombings in 2005. It is easy to see why Mottaki feels very confident that no nation dares to attack Iran. Even though Iran is known to be the world’s largest supplier of terrorist financing and equipment, to date no nation has taken direct action against it except the U.S. and then only under Republican presidents.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, interviewed on the Sean Hannity radio show yesterday, expressed some hope that the hostage incident can still be resolved diplomatically, but that is the politically correct answer one would expect from the nation’s head diplomat. Hannity reminded Secretary Rice of President Reagan’s response in 1987 when the Iranian Navy attempted to mine the Persian Gulf, in which commercial oil and military vessels of various nations were operating. President Reagan considered the Iranian mining strategy a danger to American and international interests and without begging for UN permission or sanctions or written resolutions, President Reagan ordered military strikes against the Iranian ships laying the mines. After several of Iran’s naval vessels were sunk, Iran stopped its mining operations. When Iran resumed mining the Gulf in 1988, Reagan again ordered military action that resulted in significant losses to the Iranian Navy. The mining stopped and was not resumed again. Some regimes only respond to, and respect, force. Iran is governed by such a regime.

The U.S. and Britain now face a moment of decision in which the global relevancy of both nations may hinge on their response to this Iranian provocation. If Britain takes no action beyond becoming “livid” or pleading with the UN Security Council to merely “condemn” the action, Britain will certainly be targeted by terrorists for increasingly brazen attacks. If the U.S. fails to take decisive action on behalf of its dearest ally and continues being distracted by partisan sniping, it may suffer a similar fate.

President Bush warned the UN about becoming irrelevant, and Bin Laden referred to America as a “paper tiger.” Perhaps both were right. The only thing that today’s Democrats become angry enough to go to war over is paper: resolutions, appropriations bills, and hanging chads. The War on Bush has spanned more than 6 years, and the only two casualties have been the world image of the President of the United States, and the unity of the American people in the face of grave danger from terrorists. It is difficult to determine who is more gleeful over President Bush’s low approval ratings, liberals or emboldened terrorists.

Foreign Minister Mottaki’s confidence that no one dares attack Iran may be premature. According to an unnamed U.S. government source quoted in the New York Sun today:

“The Iranians are going to be shocked to find out how badly they have miscalculated," this official said. "Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days."

444 days is a long time to let an act of war go unpunished. It is fitting that Carter was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, because from 1979 to 1981 he contributed a great deal to the “peaceful” seizure of the U.S. Embassy and Embassy staff in Tehran through his spineless non-response to that act of war. It is no coincidence that the man whose face is circled in the picture at right with a U.S. Embassy hostage is the same man who orchestrated the kidnapping of the British crew last week: Ahmadinejad. Britain and America should hope history is not repeated in the current hostage incident. In that context, one week has already been too long to let an act of war go unpunished.