Um, And?
But I wonder if Jim has given much thought to the commercial aspects of having all this free-flowing personal “intelligence” in the hands of so many private companies who have no apparent limitations on what they can do with your data once they get their hands on it.
Answer: Depends what you mean by “much.” Surely there are issues. But the “commercial aspects” seem like small beer next to civil asset forfeiture, extraordinary rendition and the gutting of habeas corpus. If Avedon wants to make or point to an argument that the commercial aspects should worry me as much or more, I’m happy to entertain it, though. In the meantime, my worry about private companies centers on the all-too-plausible contention that the new “security-industrial-complex” benefits so massively from hot wars that it’s a qualitatively different kind of threat than the old military-industrial complex, which was bad enough. I worry quite a lot about Booz Allen and Blackwater bankrolling “experts” to argue for wars here and there and everywhere, and private prison firms lobbying for ever harsher penalties and ever looser rules of evidence for ever milder crimes. These are all private firms and a number of them are in the loop for “personal intelligence.” I don’t think that’s what Avedon means, though.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 20, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
Since you brought up private prisons, I want to go on a tangent: Keep in mind that prison guard unions are basically the public sector equivalent of industry lobbyists, and every bit as powerful (at least in some states).
Which is not to say that I’ve come to a conclusion in favor of private prisons. If there is any merit in private prisons, it is probably due to the fact that they are a new entrant in the market and hence the subject of skepticism and scrutiny. If they become entrenched, I’m sure they could become as awful as any public sector prison. The “public prison vs. private prison” debate misses the point, which is that we wouldn’t have nearly as many prisoners if we didn’t have a drug war.
It’s a bit like arguing over whether we should invade Iraq with Blackwater or with regular troops. The correct answer is to not invade Iraq.
Comment by Randolph Fritz —
August 20, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
I am thinking that having all that data in private hands is a major security problem. It just isn’t going to stay secure, which of course opens up some truly Orwellian possibilities. But, also, if it’s not secure then any enemy of the USA can probably gain access to it.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 20, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Exactly, Randolph. If it’s OK to pass it on to lots and lots of agencies and contractors, then it probably isn’t terribly important information. Which just begs the question of why it was collected in the first place.
The answer, of course, is the drug war. Which takes us right back to the vested interests behind the prison-industrial complex…
Comment by Avedon —
August 21, 2007 @ 5:59 am
It’s all one thing. The privatizataion of security means there is no security, full stop. Not for you, and not for the country. Against anything. At all.
I do include prisons and the “justice” system in that, and yes, the fact that there is a commercial incentive to throw you in jail makes it all that much more horrible. And, yes, the War on Some Drugs is a significant part of it. So is the war on porn.
Comment by sniflheim —
August 21, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
You’ve heard of ChoicePoint?
Comment by Kip W —
September 9, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
“Begging the question” isn’t the same as “raising the question” or “making one ask.” I know I shouldn’t bother, but I see it all over the place, and this is one of the few where I think that saying something might get a result.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 9, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
I find the explanations of the correct usage of “BTQ” opaque enough that I just avoid the phrase where possible, which is pretty much all the time.