On PRISM, Snowden, and other Recent Politics

In short: The NSA and the government are in the wrong, and this is very scary in its implications. Snowden, while maybe not the saint or hero that some make him out to be, made a hard decision for what he believed was the right thing based on the constitution and the will of the American people, and therefore should not face fear of prosecution or violence from his country.

The argument is that the government broke one of the most fundamental laws, period: the Constitution. Specifically, that the fourth amendment protecting against unreasonable search and seizure is being violated, regardless of the contents of the Patriot Act.

The fear is that, ignoring the question of whether or not the government is using the data responsibly today, what is stopping a future official from abusing the power this type of data provides? It's not even a slippery-slope argument: the fact is, with the level of information the government is gathering on innocent civilians, they have the potential to harm freedoms of speech and of privacy to an unnecessary extreme. There's precedent: Nixon stated that "Well, when the president [breaks the law], that means that it is not illegal". There's the possibility and I daresay the likelihood for those with skewed perceptions of morality to enter into public office, and then to abuse the capabilities they're given.

"I have nothing to hide." Maybe you don't, but maybe there are reasons beyond criminality to desire privacy. What if a political activist is redflaged and monitored simply because they speak up against their government? What if a congressman is coerced, blackmailed for a vote for a cause? What if a candidate is discredited through information gathered through such means? Granted, these are hypothetical. These may never come to pass. But maybe they would, or maybe some other abuse could come to light. Is that really worth it?

"Safety is a more important priority than privacy." Two things wrong with this: first, while safety and security are goals bestowed by the people onto their government, privacy is a RIGHT guaranteed by the constitution. It's a fundamental building block of freedom and peace and democracy and all of those things that sound like buzzwords but honestly, when you think about it, are the only truly important things. Secondly, if the saving of lives is the only concern... there are other directions to pursue, in policy and in expenditure, that are more congruent to that goal. Policies of avoiding war, of researching medicine or safety, that take many more lives than terrorism ever will.

And that's the other thing: if terror inspires us to allow the government to take unreasonable control and breaches of privacy, then those who act through terrorism have succeeded. If we give up our rights out of fear, then we have given up what separates us from those who spread that fear - namely, our ability to see beyond the moment, and realize that principle may very well be more important than reactionary out-lash. That's the truly scary thought to me.