Oh yeah, our freedom.

I love this cartoon from Tom Toles. Seems particularly appropriate to share now, even though it is a bit old, after lawmakers caved to the FBI during Patriot Act reauthorization debates, and a court ruled the Bush administration and the NSA illegally wiretapped two attorneys.

Thanks to Jason at Zombie Popcorn for the link!

Following up on the recent post on surveillance, and Big Brother myths, I found this brilliant billboard improvement on the Groundswell Collective blog.

There’s also a YouTube video of the editing in action.

Many thanks to the Billboard Liberation Front for keeping our streets factually accurate.

There’s been a lot of talk in the press lately about government surveillance; Congress, instead of providing checks and balances on President Bush’s illegal spying program, actually voted to radically EXPAND the spy powers (and, of course, give legal immunity to phone corporations).

It seems like whenever government surveillance and harassment makes the news, coverage in both the mainstream and alternative press turns into the repetition of a series of Big Brother myths. I think this is a good time to try to dispel a few of them:

• Keep your nose clean and you have nothing to fear. I think, for most people reading this website, this isn’t a myth as much as it is an outright lie. But, even as the bill gives the executive branch even more power to eavesdrop on people suspected of having some ties to “terrorists,” you have supporters like Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri saying you have nothing to fear “unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.”
• Obama will save us. Is it just me or is it getting downright creepy how folks seem to think that everything will change if/when Obama takes office? Yeah, he’s better than Bush on nearly any issue. However, I hate to burst bubbles here, but Obama supports the expanded surveillance powers. Perhaps because he wants those powers for himself?
• Everyone is at risk, so no one is at risk. I’ve heard from more and more people who think that, since the government is spying on everyone, all the time, no one is more at risk than anyone else. In other words, people are getting so desensitized, so numb to the issue, that the thought of expanded government powers doesn’t matter much because, well, there’s no use trying to stop it. Privacy doesn’t exist anymore, anyway.

  But I think this is the most dangerous myth of the bunch. It’s worse than the denial of “you have nothing to fear.” And it’s worse than the eerie Obama-will-save-our-souls optimism. It’s dangerous because 1) it ignores the fact that some people ARE more at risk (see the recent border adventure, or the FBI infiltrating vegan potlucks) and 2) it implies that that there is something inevitable about all of this.

  There’s nothing inevitable about “total information awareness.” There’s nothing inevitable about phone companies allowing the NSA to set up shop in their offices. And there’s nothing inevitable about DHS searching laptops at the border.

  All of these things are created by people in power who want more power. “There’s virtually no branch of the U.S. government that isn’t in some way involved in monitoring or surveillance,” Matthew Aid, an intelligence historian and fellow at the National Security Archives at The George Washington University, told the Baltimore Sun. “We’re operating in a brave new world.”

What do you think? Is it worth fighting the endless expansion of surveillance powers? Or should we just pass the soma and enjoy the brave new world?

Happy Thursday.

From Dan Eggen at The Washington Post:

A federal judge today struck down portions of the USA Patriot Act as unconstitutional, ordering the FBI to stop issuing “national security letters” that secretly demand customer information from Internet service providers and other businesses.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution’s separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process.

Marrero wrote in his 106-page ruling that Patriot Act provisions related to NSLs are “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.”