INFORMATION TRACKING

Information tracking

December 16, 2002

No doubt there will be a backlash from all the data posted on the cyber waves concerning the head of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) project, John Poindexter. Indication of Poindexter's irritation with the invasion of his privacy, by the posting of that information to the world in general, can be discerned from the message one now reportedly reaches when calling his home: "The party you are calling is not available at this time." Not "you have reached the home of John Poindexter who isn't available at this time, please leave a message," but a message that leaves the caller with the decided impression Mr Poindexter does not want to talk to people who find his invasion of their privacy irritating.

As many already know, the foundation of the TIA project didn't arise from the ashes of September 11, 2001, the building of TIA's foundation has been in the works for many years with citizen researchers predicting where it would end up. One only need look at SPEEDE/ExPRESS put out by the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES), under the U.S. Department of Education, to realize the amount of information the government seeks to compile on the individual, cradle to grave.

And the government, never missing an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis, whether contrived or spontaneous, merely used the horror of September 11, 2001, to bring the system to fruition. After all, who could object to information sharing after seeing the World Trade Towers crumble into a pile of debris, taking the lives of thousands of people with them as they fell? Wouldn't privacy advocates be labeled kooks and extremists in the face of that horror? If you or I took advantage of such a situation, we would be called "opportunists", but when the government does it, it's "for the good of the people".

Just like Waco and Ruby Ridge were "for the good of the people". Very few saw the bigger picture. After all, wasn't David Koresch a religious fanatic, Randy Weaver and family some of those anti-government zealots? Didn't the populace at large need protection from "those people"? Never mind their constitutional right to their beliefs ... only the beliefs the government deems acceptable will be allowed.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were but a test to see whether the American people would be willing to give up their rights for security against anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" of the government. And the populace, by and large, justified the killing of Randy Weaver's son and wife and the Branch Davidians because of their beliefs, not because they had broken any law.

The American people should have been outraged by what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge ... but they weren't, indicating how little the people of our nation know about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And that, of course, leads back to a failure by the government schools to educate children.

But when one understands that the purpose of the government is to increase its power and position, teaching children about the Constitution and Bill of Rights isn't in the government's best interests now, is it?

It will be interesting to see the reaction of government officials to the release of the privacy invasive information on John Poindexter. What will they do? Will they say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" or will they say, "You are inciting people to harass a government official which is a criminal offense"?

My bet is on the latter. Our Founding Fathers didn't believe in privileges and protection for people in the government, mostly because they realized that such inevitably would lead to the protection and cover-up of corruption, allowing people in government to do unto others what they, themselves, would not want done unto them.