Terrorism, Privacy, Civil Rights, and the National Database

Listening to Obama detail the systemic failures of the intelligence and security communities in regards to the Christmas day bombing attempt, I was delighted by his use of the phrase "connect the dots." I recently posted under a similar title regarding essentially the same subject: too much information and no algorithm to make sense it. When I connect the dots, I see the problem of terrorism challenging the concept of privacy (which leads to consideration of civil rights.) As much as I regard my privacy, I realize that it is at best illusory. Information about me is already out of my hands (and therefore in someone else's) as is the case with most Americans.


Privacy, which is essentially separating yourself from the rest, is an archaic concept in modern times. Some languages and cultures even lack the terms to translate "privacy." And who, now, can claim to be separated from the rest, when even members of indigenous tribes wear t-shirts? We are no longer a race of individuals, but a global society (albeit divided into nations, cultures, religions, etc.) Cooperation has advanced our progress in unprecedented ways and it's nearly impossible to conceive humanity returning to other, previous, less-cooperative socio-economic and political models. 


What do we want to keep private? And why? If privacy is the cost of security, is it too high a price? Frankly, I don't think so. Ask anyone in a truly insecure environment what they would do/give for security and I'm sure you'll find there is little they wouldn't do/give. Security is a basic human incentive. Whether it is food or shelter or clothing, having these basic items minimize the greatest natural risks to human existence and creates a sense of well-being. 


Terrorism attacks the human sense of well-being and security and it is very effective. Unfortunately, it exploits privacy to gain anonymity, which hampers many efforts to identify terrorists. So it seems that to deny terrorists of anonymity we have to sacrifice privacy. 


Civil rights are of profound importance to our nation and to the world. If we refuse to understand and accept that all humans are equal we are bound to continue in our abhorrent patterns of discrimination and exploitation. These patterns are probably large contributors to the underlying fundamentals of terrorism. But privacy is no longer extended equally to all, and information and its concentration offer new possibilities of more efficient application of "private information" to solve real problems and create greater efficiency. Privacy is not a civil right because we live in a civil society.  


National Security Adviser John Brennan asserted that if it was determined that it was a lack of personnel, that more could be hired. In his opinion, the problems that led to the systemic failure (when determined) should be fixable. The message is that the organization of the U.S. intelligence apparatus into 16 different agencies/departments would not need to be fundamentally changed, but simply made to work better. I'm completely dissatisfied with this approach. We failed not once, not twice, but at least three times to prevent domestic attacks on planes alone in the U.S. in the last ten years. We don't need resources, we need solutions.

No one wants to say out loud, if we give up some privacy we may gain some security, but why not. What's private nowadays? My social security number must be on at least 40 or 50 corporate, NPO, and government databases; spending patterns are analyzed by various companies; income and expenses kept by the IRS. Much of the information I would consider private is at least shared by one other party, so I don't really feel it's all that private anymore. We've given up much of our privacy already but don't want to admit it.

Having so much personal information stored on foreign computers isn't an issue for most of us (unless we are victims of identity theft) but it does point to some missed efficiencies. In hospitals, electronic medical records have improved efficiency and outcomes substantially. Sharing information across all departments provides medical professionals with the tools to perform their jobs better. But what if your doctor is in L.A. and you're in a N.Y. hospital emergency room at 5 a.m.? If the information can't be shared quickly, doctors in N.Y. will do the best they can with whatever information they have. Patients die from information bottlenecks like this one. Your medical record is private and protected by law, but laws, though well intentioned, can have unforeseen and unintended consequences. 

A national database could optimize the many diverse and disjointed databases currently in use to provide a level of efficiency we can only imagine. The perils of abuse of such a system would have to be tempered with careful allocation of privileges and ultra-precise accountability, but the benefits of having such a vast dataset would easily outweigh the risks. Terrorism, fraud, poverty, education, unemployment, and safety could all be researched and addressed with a precision never before available. We don't lack the resources to fight terrorism, but we do lack the vision, the will, and the resolve to face the problem. Losing our concept of privacy may be difficult and painful for some, but what do we have to hide from each other if we all live together.