(This story was also published on Newsvine)
I was listening to Security Now earlier today, and Leo Laporte was talking with Steve Gibson about cryptography. It’s a pretty interesting topic, and it carries some fairly heavy "ethical" concerns – as they pointed out in the podcast.
Essentially, both Steve and Leo were strongly against any ability by the government to maneuver around encryption for the sake of "national security." I understand this perspective; it’s in line with Orwell’s predictions in "1984." I think Leo put it succinctly by saying, in justification of NSA snooping, something like "the government is fairly benign now, but we don’t know what it’s going to be like in the future."
They don’t trust the government…and I’ll bet that if you asked ten random people on the street whether or not they trust the government, you’d get more than five (perhaps more) who don’t trust the government either. This isn’t a shocker to me, as you can’t hardly spend any time in the blogosphere without running across some reference to "Big Brother."
Ironically, I was driving across a bridge while I was listening to this podcast. The bridge itself isn’t anything spectacular: most people who drive on it each day probably couldn’t tell you that it was a bridge. In actuality, it’s no more than 25 or 30 feet above the freeway below, and isn’t more than a quarter of a mile long. But as I was listening to this, thinking about whether or not I trust the government, the following occurred to me: would I have driven on this bridge, without hesitating, if I didn’t trust the government?
There’s the line of thought, and it doesn’t stop with bridges. Every day we do things (eat in restaurants, drive on bridges, give money to banks, pay taxes) that require the government’s involvement to ensure our safety and satisfaction. We do most of these things without thinking twice, yet, if the government were to somehow make a mistake, what might the consequences be?
Let’s continue with the bridge example. If the portion of the government that sets architectural/engineering standards for public expressway bridges was staffed – due to the untrustworthy nature of the government – by complete buffoons, it would be conceivable that the bridge might be constructed in an unsafe way. What happens if the bridge fails while I’m driving across it? You can count on the results being far more disastrous to me than some dude in dark shades at the NSA knowing what type of pizza I ordered last night.
Before the rants start filling up the comments section, understand that I recognize the difference between privacy and the "public good." We pay taxes so that things like roads and bridges can be built, so that we know the restaurants we eat in are clean to an acceptable standard, and that when we deposit our money in a bank, we have a legal way to get that money back. But we do those things because we trust that the government is doing what’s in our best interest.
I’m not making an argument for boundless wire tapping or special "backdoors" in encryption schemes, just pointing out what I perceive to be a particularly ironic stance on governmental trust.
Let the flaming begin.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Robbie // Apr 8, 2006 at 6:17 am
I think a certain amount of trust, balanced with distrust is necessary when dealing with anything. It’s like how the three branches of govt. are supposed to work–each being able cancel out the other. Unfortunantly, that’s not really the case right now, but that’s another rant.
BTW- have you seen the cameo John C. Dvorak and Steve Gibson have in the podcast sitcom? It’s pretty random, but funny.
http://cigarvideopodcast.com/episodes/index.html
2 Turnip // Apr 8, 2006 at 6:48 am
I heard about that cigar video podcast on Leo’s “Tech Guy” show…I keep meaning to check it out. I’ll have a gander.
Good call.
3 gkatsoufis // Apr 10, 2006 at 7:16 am
From your post I think you defeated your own argument. Civil engineering works and financial transactions are acute, measurable acts that have a direct affect on the public good. Moreover, the people responsible for them are legally and contractually bound by the licenses the government grants as well as in the by-laws of their trade associations. Moreover, the statute of limitations on civil engineering works spill over the grandkids’ generation. In other words, if the bridge you signed off on were to collapse due to poor design (construction and maintenance are separate entities), and you and your children were no longer alive, your grandchildren would be liable for the design flaw. They would not necessarily go to jail but their finances would be in jeopardy. This is a digression…
On the subject of wire tapping, the individuals involved are not readily transparent. The action is not readily transparent. The reasoning for the action is not readily transparent. The system in place for these checks is not readily transparent. As a society we have to take our government for their word and hope that those that do have access are checking up on it.
You know the saying, “Absolute Power, Absolutely Corrupts.” We are not there, yet, but to think that the possibility to reach that point is never going to happen, to me, means that you don’t pay too much attention to human history, let alone current affairs. One need only look at the past sixty years and see, time and time again, a “benevolent” ruler brought to power by the dissatisfaction of the old regime only to turn up to be less considerate of the populace. If, as a society, we do not want to repeat the mistakes that our neighbors have (neighbors that are like us in many more ways than we wish to admit), then we all need to be active and willing to keep an eye on our government.
And if you think that our checks and balances are in good shape, let me just remind you of an event that I will never forget; Hurricane Andrew (1992). In the aftermath of Andrew the homes left standing in Andrew’s wake were built before 1969 because the code had such high a factor of safety that it would be close to impossible for wind to knock the homes down. The reason why the homes after ‘69 didn’t make it was not due to poor design but poor governmental inspection.
If our government did not take the task of inspecting the construction quality of our homes seriously, what makes you think they’ll do it for some of our freedoms (let alone our security)? The human equation is just way too large and too complex for there to be any absolute certainty as to what to expect from it. The only certainty about us is that we never know what to expect and that’s the point after all.
4 USELESS MAN // Apr 13, 2006 at 5:13 am
I was going to make a comment but I didn’t want “The Man” to track me back..
By now, I’ve already said too much…
5 TLC // Apr 18, 2006 at 10:18 pm
I think you have a fallacious argument. It is possible to trust some aspects of the government, while distrusting others. I don’t trust the administration currently in power, but there are checks and balances that protect us. In the case of the highway bridge: there are regulations, codes that were enacted to keep us safe; to keep the bridges, buildings and other structures we live with safe.
For a case of why I don’t trust the government: Hurricane Katrina. It is an excellent example of what happens when the government doesn’t do what it is supposed to do: protect the interests of the people.
Of course, what came after that is really no surprise. When you have an administration that doesn’t care about the people they are supposedly serving, they cease to think of those people as individuals with rights. Those people become a means to an end.
Do you doubt this? Ask Richard Nixon about the Watergate Tapes…and why he did what he did. The tapes were a means to an end. That end was power. The same thing is going on here. A President, spying upon American citizens. Domestic spying to gain power.
6 Nick // Apr 19, 2006 at 11:56 am
This has been a non issue for me so forgive my ignorance. What would any american citizen have to worry about “the man” looking at what they do? If it was an “illegal” wire tap or such then even if I were breaking the law, it couldn’t be used against me in court. So what do I have to worry about? Now on the other hand if I were listening and heard about some stuff going down in France (we would all ignore it because France sucks) by someone, we could take action on it.
Remember the famous quote “We are from the Government and here to help”
7 the commentator // Apr 20, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Governments are run by humans – or monkey’s. Hence, they are flawed and should not be trusted – humans that is. Yet, we need governance to maintain some resemblance of order and stability. Ironic stuff.
Leave a Comment