DownWithTyranny!: Some Candidates For Congress Favor Domestic Spying And Some Oppose It-- Where Do You Stand?

I almost never leave the house anymore unless I'm going to Mali or India or Tuscany or someplace cool. But Thursday evening I went out-- to the Japanese Community Center to see a lecture by Glenn Greenwald, ostensibly a book talk for No Place To Hide. It was sold out-- every single seat taken and when Glenn walked out onto the stage, he had a roaring standing ovation. The event, at least for me, was better than most rock shows. I touched on it yesterday but up top you can watch a section, towards the end of his talk, about why privacy-- which authoritarian/comformist societies are always trying to compromise and diminish-- is so crucial to human beings. The video is 15 minutes and I really suggest you watch it. It takes a lot longer to read 1984.

"We all need places where we can go to explore without the judgmental eyes of other people being cast upon us," he said, to thunderous audience applause. "Only in a realm where we’re not being watched can we really test the limits of who we want to be. It’s really in the private realm where dissent, creativity and personal exploration lie… When we think we’re being watched, we make behavior choices that we believe other people want us to make. It’s a natural human desire to avoid societal condemnation. That’s why every state loves surveillance-- it breeds a conformist population."

Monica Guzman was at Glenn's talk a few days earlier in Seattle and she was as inspired as I was in L.A. that he gave one of the most eloquent defenses of privacy in the digital world that she'd ever heard. "One that made me realize," she wrote, "I’ve treated a critically social issue as a mostly individual one-- even if I can’t believe as wholeheartedly as he does that our government is out to get us. Three of his points resonated with me:"

1. Saying privacy is no big deal if you’re not doing anything wrong is not only silly, but harmful.

I’ve heard all kinds of people-- even relatives-- say it in the wake of the NSA disclosures: “I don’t really care if the government reads my emails. I don’t do anything illegal. I have nothing to hide.”

I’ve dismissed that argument as someone else’s silly dismissal of a big deal. Now I’m convinced it’s a problem.

“There are all sorts of things we have to hide as individuals that have nothing to do with criminality,” Greenwald said.

It’s obvious when you think about it, but too many people don’t. This is a value thing: The farther the notion spreads that only criminals would want privacy, the more suspicious anyone who wants privacy is going to look, eroding privacy for everyone.

Greenwald said he tells everyone who argues this to send him all their passwords so he can publish their emails and other things on a whim. “Not a single person-- not one-- has taken me up on that offer,” he said.

2. The wholesale collection of personal data about citizens creates a dangerous power imbalance.

A motto of the NSA, as revealed in the documents released by Snowden, is "Collect it all."

Set aside any discussion about when and whether the data collection is justified. When one side has a lot of it, and the other none, there’s a problem.

The best argument I’ve heard for this comes from University of Washington professor Ryan Calo, who wrote a paper on the data collection being done by marketers and corporations.

In a healthy consumer/marketer relationship, he argues, consumers have tools to resist marketers’ pull. When corporations can collect and exploit vast amounts of consumer data, they can nullify many of those tools, rendering consumers too weak for their own good.

Could citizens be rendered too weak for their own good, too? I don’t see why not.

3. Creativity, dissent and other non-conformist ideas require time spent in private realms.

Public conversations are great. Group conversations are great. But we are most freely ourselves when we have zero fear of judgment. When what we think or say needs no filters for the broader world.

This, too, is a value thing. Nothing about the NSA disclosures make me believe we’re even close to losing the integrity of so many of our private spaces. But we have to pay attention: Losing any may be too much.

“When others are watching, our behavior becomes more conformist, more compliant,” Greenwald said.

That sounds like a future worth fighting.

Thursday night while I was at the Japanese Community Center listening to Glenn. Congress was debating Thomas Massie's very bipartisan amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that is meant to keep the NSA from spying on Americans without a warrant. It passed-- surprisingly and overwhelmingly, 293-123. 94 Republicans and 29 Democrats, almost all of them in the pocket of the Military Industrial Complex, voted against it. And three of those anti-privacy Republicans are facing challenges from Blue America endorsed candidates.

Among the NSA shills who voted in favor of domestic spying were Fred Upton (R-MI), David Joyce (R-OH) and John Kline (R-MN). The progressives running against them are, respectively, Paul Clements, Michael Wager and Mike Obermueller. None of these races are priorities for Steve Israel, who voted with his pals Upton, Joyce and Kline in favor of domestic spying. Although 158 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment, Israel (along with Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) were able to scare several of the least courageous Democrats in the House that they would lose unless they vote with the conservatives-- sniveling cowards like Scott Peters (CA), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Julia Brownley (CA), Patrick Murphy (FL), and Ron Barber (AZ), all of whom are members of the corrupt New Dem Coalition.

All of the Blue America candidates back privacy rights and would have stood with Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Progressive Caucus to back Massie's amendment. Like most Michiganders, Paul Clements was disappointed that Upton betrayed the Constitution on behalf of his donors from the Military Industrial Complex. "It shouldn't be a surprise," Paul told us this morning, "when many from both parties stand up for our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Protecting our freedoms from unwarranted government surveillance programs isn't just politically popular-- it's the right thing to do. We need more leaders in Congress working to protect our individual liberties and stand up against government overreach. New technology has has allowed historically unprecedented violations of privacy. The founders fought for the right of the people to be secure in their communications, property and data against unreasonable searches and seizure. Amendments like those passed last night work to protect small business individuals, and our collective freedom. I'm disappointed Congressman Upton didn't join the huge bipartisan majority or the American people in fighting for reform. If voters in southwest Michigan decide to elect me to represent them, they can be sure I will always fight for individual rights and for the right to privacy for all law-abiding citizens of this state."

If you're fine with unconstitutional domestic spying on you and your family, then you should have no problem with Upton, Joyce and Kline. If you'd like to replace them with progressives who abhor domestic spying, please consider helping us replace them with Paul Clements, Michael Wager and Mike Obermueller right here.