Adumbration

I suppose one reason that Obama is now choosing to send arms to Syrian rebels is that it distracts attention from the domestic issue of widespread government spying on the citizenry. 

Former VP Dick Cheney is among the apologists for this policy, going so far as to say that such espionage on US citizens would have precluded the attacks of 11 September 2001.  What he and others are hoping to confuse is the difference between possibility and probability, and the costs along the way in time and materials spent on the databases, networks and software, and the uncountable costs to individual liberty and sovereignty given up in the name of making us feel a tiny bit safer.

Bruce Schneier gives an interesting interview on these subjects over at EconTalk, presciently discussing such threats to our privacy in a talk recorded just prior to this recent news broke.  While I side more with Roberts on the questions of relative weighting of the the danger of government and corporate entitities collecting personally identifiable information about us, I think Schneier is right on with his appraisal of the psychology of the majority of the population, wanting only to not feel afraid.  Schneier is also characteristically realistic in the blunt observation that life has risks, and there's no way to completely eliminate them, so we ought to be similarly realistic in what we do to evaluate and mitigate those risks.  The fact is that far more people die on the highways than are ever threatened by acts of terrorism in the United States, and yet every day we hop in our cars and risk other drivers on the highways.

Outrage is just part of my reaction to this story, although I confess the belief that much more and worse things are being done in the name of homeland security.  President Obama's remarks about this scandal are transcribed here; around the tenth paragraph he makes the following statement, referring to the public discussion now occurring on the question of security and privacy:

And I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity, because probably five years ago, six years ago, we might not have been having this debate. And I think it’s interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren’t very worried about it when it was a Republican president. I think that’s good that we’re having this discussion.

Unfortunately I don't think we can rely on the truth of this statement, for if he really wanted a debate on this topic then he would not have bought off on the secrecy of the whole program.  Secrecy that they were not planning to lift for 25 years - until 2038, which is shown in the court order to Verizon that demands they turn over customer records.

Finally, I bring to mind the content of the fourth amendment to the constitution of the united States:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.