Our view

Edward Snowden case merits privacy debate

Edward Snowden’s continuing efforts to elude U.S. efforts to criminalize leaks confirming we live in a 1984-like surveillance state should be stirring more debate on whether Americans have unknowingly given up their Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

He may well have violated the law but, in doing so, he revealed that our government assumes it can invade our privacy in pursuit of terrorism without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. That it does so with the oversight of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court does not inspire confidence.

In a dissent 85 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the Fourth Amendment the U.S. Constitution’s “right to be left alone.” Over the past 30 years, that principle has been whittled down by laws permitting DUI sobriety checkpoints and various efforts to prosecute a war on drugs, but being left alone is a bedrock American value apparently now in need of a vigorous defense.

The reason we have a Fourth Amendment is to prevent the government from using its vast powers to act as a dragnet, catching all up in its crime-fighting zeal. The founders of this country determined it was essential to a free people to have the government’s reasonable suspicion of illegality placed before an independent magistrate who could deny a search warrant without sufficient probable cause.

That formula has worked nicely since 1787. It must be returned to without exceptions, and protected.

No one elected the national security state that appears to trump at will this fundamental right. Snowden’s actions remind us that we may have not just abandoned notions of personal privacy in advancing the state’s interests in an ephemeral security but perhaps any meaningful idea of freedom as well.

The full scope of Snowden’s disclosures – and their impact – hasn’t been determined yet, and probably won’t be for years. But if he has opened our eyes, and we act on what we see, he will have done a great public service.

Scripps Howard News Service


Discussion | 1 comment

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • rlw895July 11, 2013 - 12:17 am

    Good to see the DR take a stand. The problem with enforcing the 4th Amendment is getting a case to court. Because the evidence is secret and protected under the "state secrets doctrine," no one has standing to challenge the federal government. Unless that changes (and I think it should), we are going to have to go the political route. Obama would order a massive reduction in surveillance if he thought that's what the American people wanted--to trade some of their post-9/11 demand for security for some of their essential liberty back. But the American people are going to have to deliberate about it, decide, and make their decision known in no uncertain terms. Part of the deal will be to give the political leaders who support the reduction, if that's the way it goes, a "pass" on any terrorist attack that might result. Benjamin Franklin said we could have our republic as long as we wanted to keep it and were worthy of keeping it. Do we? Are we?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.