 |
 |
 |
 |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
 |
|
| The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, but what happens when upholding one right means to violate another? Thomas Jefferson once said, “We hold these truths to be self–evident, That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There is a reason that Jefferson listed life as the first inalienable right. Life is priceless and irreplaceable. Above all else, government needs to keep its citizens safe. But, American citizens are very protective of their right to privacy, and now, more than ever, it is being threatened, and it’s the government’s responsibility to protect it. But, it’s also the government’s responsibility to protect the citizens themselves. Invading their privacy could possibly save their lives in certain situations. This issue has been wrestled with for years, but just within the last decade the United States government has chosen a side. With the arrival of the Patriot Act, a bill that gave the government somewhat invasive powers to defend terrorism, the United States government has chosen to put its citizens’ safety ahead of their right to privacy. On the surface, this seems like the logical, responsible action. Human life is priceless, hence it needs to be protected above all things. But, what separates humans from animals is that we acknowledge more than our physical well being. America was founded on the concept of true freedom. Violating citizens’ right to privacy in favor of protection seems to defy the purpose of government: to protect the rights of its citizens. But isn’t life a right in itself. Corey Doctorow offers an example of where the United States could be going in this aspect. In his novel, Little Brother, the protagonist is abducted by the government, and proceeds to be watched by the government through various forms of technology. This book provides one answer to whether or not the government is justified in putting protection over privacy, but is it the right answer? I believe the government is correct in putting the safety of its citizens above their privacy, but in doing this, the government walks a very fine line. Doctorow's stance is not an uncommon one. He places principles before tangible concerns, which, in some cases, is necessary, but in this case misguided, considering the tangible concern is the lives of millions of American citizens. Protecting those lives really is the true purpose of government. Government’s role in society is first and foremost to provide order. It is supposed to make rules, enforce them, and provide consequences for breaking them. But on the issue on whether or not to protect the people or their right to privacy, opinions vary. Thomas Jefferson subtly hinted that life is the most important right people are born with, but then again the right to life isn’t what makes America so special. It’s freedom. John Locke, a major influence on the founding fathers, cited consent as a having a central role in government, and Corey Doctorow would agree. The lack of consent is a major theme in his book. Marcus did not consent to unlocking his phone until he was tortured. Neither did he consent the government to tap his computer. In terms of the US Patriot Act consent only came from the government itself rather than the people, even though it’s the people who are most affected. But, not even the Founding Fathers thought the people should not be completely trusted, hence the implementation of the electoral college, which puts the final say on the presidential vote in the hands of representatives from each state. This hesitation by the greatest thinkers of their time is evidence toward the tendency of the individuals in a group to think as individuals rather than one entity. Few individuals would vote to have their taxes raised for the greater good. Privacy is the same way. No individual wants to sacrifice his or her privacy under any circumstance. Groups of people have no concept of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral benefit of majority (or the greater good) outweighs that of the individual. A government must balance utilitarianism with each individual’s rights. Doctorow does not believe in utilitarianism. He believes that every single citizen should be treated equally under the government. While everyone would agree that this is ideal, it is not realistic. In order to provide everyone with equal safety and opportunities, those who are suspected of causing potential harm to the citizens of the United States through terrorism must sacrifice their right to privacy for the greater good. In the end it comes down to the degree of which the rights of one side is being violated and the degree of benefit received by the other. What is most important for a government to avoid is one group of people always being on the negative side. While there may be particular people targeted in the Patriot Act, the harm done is slim to none, unless one of the people targeted is, in fact, a terrorist. The invasion of privacy is purely to keep people safe from terrorism. It is not to condemn people of other crimes. If a person were innocent, there would be absolutely no harm done to them. The Patriot Act upholds the idea of utilitarianism in that it is aiding in the protection of hundreds of millions of people and only harming those who are putting said people in danger. There is almost no way to avoid utilitarianism in government, yet Doctorow thinks it is an idea that should be abandoned by the United States, to some degree. He only offers what he thinks should not be done. He gives no opinion about how to resolve these issues. It's one thing to point out a problem, and provide an answer, but Doctorow is purely just criticizing the current system without any idea about how to actually protect the country. The government did provide an answer, and that answer is the US Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is a key issue in Little Brother, even though it is not specifically mentioned. Former President George W. Bush on October twenty-sixth, 2001, signed the USA Patriot Act, which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The act was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by the House Chair, Frank James Sensenbrenner Jr, a member of the Republican Party. It was almost unanimous in the Senate, receiving only one “no” vote and received eighty-four percent of the votes in the House. Corey Doctorow would have undoubtedly been in that small minority. The Patriot Act dramatically increases the government’s power regarding law enforcement’s ability to search telephone, e-mail, medical, and financial records, as well as several other authorities involving foreign intelligence as well as financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign entities. It has ten titles that provide the details to this relatively new law. As seen in Little Brother, it gives the government lots of invasive power. Doctorow uses the main character, Marcus, to represent the unheard voice of the American people. He could have chosen to make his protagonist any type of character, but he chose a nerdy high school student for a reason: to represent those who seemingly have no power against the government. The Patriot Act was not voted upon by the people, but rather their elected officials. Marcus, though, had no say in even electing said officials, yet he was affected by this law more than almost anyone. But the question I pose to Doctorow is what would he have the government do? The Patriot Act was put into place as a result of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. This was George W. Bush’s first major action following his famous speech at Ground Zero, promising to make those responsible pay for their wrongdoings. He would not be able to carry out this promise without this law. While Bush had one of the highest approval ratings in history at the time the act was passed, it did not go without controversy, but nevertheless it went through. It’s unclear whether or not the Patriot Act played a significant role in Osama Bin Laden’s death, but now that Bin Laden has been brought to justice, even those who initially supported it are calling for it to end. Its initial purpose has been accomplished, but it still can be of further use to the country. Most people who oppose the Patriot Act don’t fear it as it is, but rather where it’s going, even though, likely it is going no further. One question posed to those who support the Patriot Act is where does it stop? This was the question Corey Doctorow posed in Little Brother. If the government has the power to give itself even more power, then what is stopping it from giving itself even more power? While these are valid questions, the United States government is built to honor the wishes of its people, in general. There may be a few laws that go by that the public would not agree on, but the system in place keeps this from becoming a trend, which is part of the reason Doctorow is wrong. First of all, the majority of 522 elected officials need to agree upon a bill for it to get passed. Second of all, the President can veto it. There are other safety nets within our government like legislative override, but the biggest safety gap of all is the vote of the people. Every senator or house representative must be voted upon by the people, for the people, making it virtually impossible for a government to continuously go against the interests of the majority. America may not be the most democratic country on the planet as Doctorow clearly points out. But, it may be the most difficult country to be turned into anything besides a democracy. This stems from the reason American was founded: to avoid oppression from an unjust government. The Founding Fathers trusted no single man to run a country, making it impossible for a single man or entity to significantly change the structure of the country. Little Brother is an extreme example of what Doctorow believes could plausibly happen under the current laws, but was it even that bad? Marcus brought almost everything upon himself by not cooperating with the authorities. If a captive does not cooperate, the government has a responsibility to find out as much information about that person that they possibly can to keep its citizens safe. Corey Doctorow uses his book, Little Brother, to make the reader believe the government is against the people. He portrays it as a villain when really, even in his book, it is just trying to protect its citizens. He uses the torture and imprisonment of high school students to create an emotional attachment to his argument, when really there is little or no motivation for that to actually happen. He doesn’t even explain why they were initially captured. Marcus committed a crime in not unlocking his phone. He was obstructing justice, hence his imprisonment was justified. The torture I find to be completely unrealistic. It is an example of Doctorow abusing his portrayal of “what could happen.” But if the government is, in fact, a villain, what is the gain it gets from the action it takes in Little Brother? There is no financial gain. Nor is there a change in political power. The only party that stands to gain anything is the people themselves. As mentioned before, the United States government has safety nets, preventing these laws found in the Patriot Act to be used against the citizens. The only people that have anything to lose are those people who are trying to harm American citizens or those who are too stubborn to prove that they are not doing anything wrong. While this book does bring up some good questions, it does not provide any answers. Doctorow simply is a radical, making his point by putting fear of the plausibility of an unrealistic future in the hearts of the reader. Finally, Doctorow simply does not put a high enough priority on human life. He puts a principle ahead of it. While principles are important, there is nothing as important as life itself. Something had to change after the attacks on the World Trade Centers. People’s privacy had to be somewhat sacrificed to protect those very same people. It’s ignorant to think that the war would simply end terrorist threats. If anything it raised them, making the laws resulting from the Patriot Act even more necessary. Providing safety to its citizens is higher priority to government, and it should be.
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |