AFFIRMATIVE - DISADVANTAGE PRIVACY HURTS SECURITY 196
WE CAN FIGHT TERRORISM AND SUPPORT PRIVACY AT THE SAME TIME
Tom Regan The Christian Science Monitor January 27, 2000, SECTION: FEATURES; BOOKS; Pg. 17 TITLE: Don't look now, but we know all about you // acs-EE2001
Garfinkel offers sound advice about alternatives to many privacy-damaging practices. For instance, he acknowledges the importance of protecting the public against acts of terrorism. But he says this can be done without infringing on the rights of private citizens or casting a wide net of suspicion over an entire ethnic or religious group. What is required, he writes, is careful planning and thoughtfulness about difficult issues - something most government and private organizations are not willing to do. But Garfinkel's most interesting and probably most controversial thesis is that government, rather than being the Big Brother of "1984," is the average citizen's best friend in the fight to protect privacy - and that vigorous, muscular legislation, and not voluntary standards, is the best way to protect citizens' rights.
CALLS FOR ACTION AGAINST DRUG CARTELS AND TERRORISTS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO COST US OUR LIBERTY
Earl C. Ravenal, senior fellow of the Cato Institute, The Washington Post, July 23, 1999, SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A29 TITLE: Heart of the Constitution; The encryption debate. // acs-EE2001
While people such as Constantine and Freeh, and Novak, put it about that government is losing this battle against "the drug cartels," all American citizens -- though they do not perceive this -- are losing their freedoms in principle and in practice. The so-called "law-enforcers" have captured the high ground of the civics textbooks. Citizens docilely accept -- even enthusiastically cheer -- the creeping criminalization of activities such as the transfer of legally gotten assets.