COLUMN: 1994

From Dan Schorr's "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94 From Dan Schorr's "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94 Big Brother is watching. In 1984, George Orwell depicted a futuristic world in which the government used advanced technology to monitor every move of its citizens. For decades, society feared that scientific advances, despite the wonders they brought, would ultimately lead to this reduction of individual liberty. Yet thankfully, Orwell's predictions have not come true. As our society has expanded its technological capabilities, the people of our nation have actually gained more freedom. Easy access to information, such as through live news coverage of historic events or research through the Internet, has broadened society's checks of government power. It has empowered citizens to react almost instantaneously to actions of our elected leaders. Orwell was wrong. Technology is a blessing, not a curse. Instead of monitors watching our living rooms, our cameras are constantly focused on the government. Big Brother is not watching us. We are watching him. For now, that is. If national leaders have their way the government will soon have the ability to monitor certain types of electronic correspondence, including the staple of University communication: e-mail. This proposal, affectionately known as "Clipper," has sent shock waves through the Internet community. As you sit there using the terminal in Steinberg-Dietrich, you'll never be sure who will be reading your every word. When you graduate and send important business information through the Internet, government officials may be monitoring your words to make sure everything is satisfactory. The arguments for such governmental power are strong. Criminals, including drug traffickers, are using such communication and the government needs easy access to it in order to stop these outlaws. But at what cost? Throughout history our country has had to balance the necessities of fighting crime and protecting individual liberties. Now, it seems the former is gaining the upper hand. Will political discourse be monitored and evaluated by some powerful official? With the ability to read about new technologies and plans of expanding businesses, the possibility of government corruption looms menacingly. No doubt, the intentions of Clipper's proposers are good. Clearly the government is not interested in infringing on our privacy. But the possibility of abuse, the chance that e-mail, the growing medium of information transfer, will be scrutinized will lead many to avoid using this technology. Even if governmental integrity is beyond reproach, the idea that confidentiality may be breached might curb the use of this important technology. And then there's the more emotional reasons to oppose Clipper. The idea that a government "of the people" can invade the privacy of citizens undermines our dearest national principles. A government that wishes to spy at will on the people it is elected to serve will never be looked upon with trust and fondness. The American people must have confidence that their officials are looking out for the interests of the citizens -- the threats Clipper will bring are antithetical to this goal. Even if this power is never abused, even if the use of e-mail is not curbed through fear of governmental intrusion, the precedent that Clipper sets is extremely foreboding. Today, e-mail, tomorrow what? Are we commencing our descent down a slippery slope, with individual rights accumulating the scratches and bruises of every jolt? The argument that crime must be monitored can be applied to limitless scenarios where personal privacy is treasured. With expanding technologies, our nation will utilize new modes of communication whose uniqueness will prevent them from immediately earning protection from government search. The fate of Clipper will speak greatly for the future of individual freedom with the advancement of new technologies, and may influence the desire to create and utilize such progress. What message is the government proclaiming by attaining a key that will open up the thoughts and messages of millions of citizens? No matter how secure certain rights may seem, the battle to hold onto them will never end. From our University campus to the federal government, the voicing of dissent is what protects us from wrongs that our leaders propose. In order to protect democracy, we must assert the power it affords us. Vocal dissent now may ultimately protect our ability to voice dissent in the future. The proposal is pending. The clock is ticking. Clipper is coming. Unless the nation stands up for its rights, Big Brother may soon be watching. Maybe Orwell just got the date wrong. Dan Schorr is a junior English major from Valley Stream, New York. Behind Enemy Lines appears alternate Fridays.