Sales of George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” skyrocketed after the revelation of U.S. government espionage earlier this year. Alana Abramson of ABC News wrote an article in early June 2013 regarding the increase in popularity of Orwell’s book, citing Amazon seeing a spike of nearly 3,000 percent in sales.
The situation is reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” popularity spike during the 2008 financial crisis. Controversy breeds the desire to find answers, and the 2013 mass surveillance leaks are doing just that.
The American people want to know why the government is spying on its allies and potentially setting back years of trust and dependence. More importantly, why are the American people themselves targets of surveillance within their own country?
The White House has a history of recording conversations within the Oval Office, and J. Edgar Hoover himself confiscated documents and recorded conversations between alleged Communist sympathizers within the United States during his time as Director of the FBI. These actions were carried out in defense of national security and protecting the American homeland.
Since 9/11, it seems as though the government has taken greater liberties with the surveillance of individuals who may pose a threat to the government of the United States. The Washington Times ran an article on Oct. 25, 2013 regarding the illegal confiscation of documents from the private home of Audrey Hudson. Hudson, an award winning investigative journalist living in Maryland, wrote an exposé on the problems in the Homeland Security Air Marshals Dept.
The search warrant procured by the Maryland State police and federal agents who entered her home in August of this year outlined the search and seizure of unregistered firearms belonging to her husband, Paul Flanagan, and did not include any specific permission to confiscate Hudson’s notes and/or files.
This infringement of the First and Fourth Amendments was in clear violation of Hudson’s rights, and yet the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) insists it did nothing wrong. It argues that the subject of the search was Flanagan, who is a Coast Guard employee, and the CGIS agent involved in the search discovered the documents labeled “For Official Use Only” and therefore was within its rights to confiscate the documents.
During the raid, Hudson was asked if she was the reporter who wrote the story on the Air Marshals during the time of the 9/11 attacks. Hudson was unaware that her documents were taken until she was informed nearly a month later.
No charges have been brought against her husband for any firearms they procured during their raid in August. The Washington Times, however, is gearing up for legal action in defense of Hudson and the violation of her privacy and her rights.
This is only one story among many regarding the debate over how far is too far with government surveillance of American citizens. Many people condemn Edward Snowden for having released documents exposing the extent of National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, citing it as an attack on national security. Others praise him for having revealed the true face of just how far surveillance has gone, not just in the United States, but also abroad.
The United States has been placed in an awkward position with the international community, and no doubt more information will surface in the coming months regarding communications surveillance in foreign countries.
Both Germany and Brazil are working together in the United Nations General Assembly to protect the privacy of electronic communications and drafting a resolution for privacy on the Internet.
Germany recently revealed the extent of NSA surveillance in their country targeted at Chancellor Angela Merkel and her personal phone calls and emails. Though it may be true Germany could have handled the situation more discretely, it can be argued that the general public has a right to know what the NSA is doing in other countries, especially if it affects social and economic relationships.
Brazil is no stranger to NSA surveillance either, having discovered the NSA was collecting information on the state-run oil company, Petrobras, and watching Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff’s personal email communications.
Not all forms of surveillance should be condemned when it comes to the safety and protection of a country’s citizens, and the NSA does have a list of key words it flags to narrow the search of potential terrorists.
But the clichéd phrase “at least their hearts are in the right place” does not quite cover the extent of personal privacy we have given up in an effort to curb terrorism.
We live in an age where Internet access is required for almost every job, and applications like Facebook and Twitter accessible on Smartphones allow for location tracking whenever an individual makes a status update from anywhere on the planet, as long as an Internet connection exists.
The United States government has a duty to keep its citizens safe against enemies, both foreign and domestic, but also to protect the natural rights and freedoms outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.
The people themselves have a duty to tell the government when it has gone too far and taken too many liberties. When the common man is faced with exercising his freedom of speech or closing his mouth for fear of persecution, which response is the correct one?
Think carefully. After all, Big Brother is watching.
