"A National System for Concerned Workers to Report Suspicious
Activity"
That's the quotation across the top of the Terrorism Information and Prevention
System (Operation TIPS) Home Page. The idea is simple enough:
people who as part of their jobs have access to public places on a regular basis (postal
workers, electric and gas meter readers, cable installers, appliance repair
people--you get the idea) are provided with a central location to report
"suspicious activity." The reports are to be centralized, entered into
a database, and reported out to appropriate regional officials. According to the
TIPS Web page, the citizens are to report suspicious behavior in public places. Of course, nothing precludes reporting of information on what is seen in private homes, though the government steadfastly denies this is its purpose.
There are some really interesting aspects to this. For one, information on it
is found on the U.S. Government's Citizen
Corps initiative Web site, not within the U.S.
Department of Justice Web site. Citizen Corps fits within the the Bush
"U.S. Freedom Corps"
initiative, which centralizes many citizen volunteer initiatives (including,
bizarrely enough, the Peace Corps). But it's clearly the DOJ's baby, as seen in
Barbara Comstock's defense
of the proposal today (she is the Director of Public Affairs for DOJ). According
to Comstock (whose press release was a response to the public bashing the
initiative has taken in recent days):
"[B]ased upon successful existing non-governmental programs like
Highway Watch, River Watch and Coast Watch, which enable American workers to
report unusual and non-emergency issues that they observe in the normal course
of their work."
After the U.S. Postal Service said it won't
participate as an organization (the TIPS Web page specifically seeks
organizational support and promises support of organizations that participate),
the NY Times
(free reg. req'd) quoted Homeland Security Director
Tom Ridge as saying: "There's a big difference being vigilant and being a
vigilante. We just want people to use their common sense . . . It is not a
government intrusion. The president just wants people to be alert and aware. ...
We're not asking for people to spy on people.''
To their credit (I'm giving the administration credit for either knowing the
limits of what even Americans can take at this time or for political savvy in
knowing what Americans can be forced to endure in these troubling times), the
TIPS Web page calls for only reports on "potentially unusual or suspicious
activity in public places." Although, in being careful to emphasize
"public," they've used the rather amorphous "potentially
unusual" . . . I'm not quite sure what that means, but couple it with a
centralized database and reporting out to regional officials, and I'm still
worried. But the emphasis on public should reassure all of us who have meter
readers, cable installers, or perhaps even more troubling, social services or
child welfare officials, visit their homes. What about people who deliver meals
on wheels, or who provide counseling to victims of domestic abuse?
The ACLU, obviously, has been having a fit.
The story has been widely but quietly reported in the press, beginning it seems
with a Washington Post editorial
on July 14. Other US press has mentioned it (such as ZDNet,
the National
Review and the Washington
Times), though it doesn't seem to be a big story anywhere other than the
ACLU. International press is also engaged, to a certain degree, with stories in
appearing in England on the BBC,
in Scotland,
in Australia,
and in Singapore.
The Jeff Rense Program has the most complete
links on the issue (I've borrowed some of Jeff's links, thanks Jeff!), but I
haven't seen a lot of buzz about this on the blog circuit (maybe I've missed it?
Wouldn't be the first time). Worldnet ran a poll
with responses indicating (as of this writing) that many people believe this is
a "big step toward a police state," and "The New Enlightment"
(an online journal of sorts) adds it's own comedic critique.
This step, formalizing a program designed to solicit citizens reporting on
other citizens, should bring back bad memories for human beings. We've done it
before; it was part and parcel of the Nazi regime; it was certainly a part of
communist East Germany and of the Soviet Union. Think back to the McCarthy era
in the U.S.: "Tell on your neighbors and your colleagues. If you don't, we
might think you've done something bad. Give us a few names, come on, it's fun,
and it's patriotic." There are of course the traditional (and well
represented by the ACLU) concerns about privacy, warehousing of information,
unauthorized or leaked access to that information. All of these are valid. And
of course, the courts have never been the big saviors of freedom when times are
tight. We need to put light on this initiative and hopefully help the
administration to see the error of its ways.
But let's not lose sight of something else: who more often has other people
in their homes, the rich, or the poor? The poor, of course, who might have
social service agencies visiting, or child welfare people visiting (also called
in by reports to centralized reporting systems), telephone companies, electric
utilities, gas utilities, repair persons, landlord's maintenance staff, all
going in and out on a regular basis. These intrusions are not required by (nor
put up with by) the more settled, less dependent-on-other, privileged people in
our society. The poor, who often move more and move to less secure locations,
would be the primary objects of this "1984" style watching.
Of course, there is a difference as well between this and past "reporting" initiatives. Those intiatives focused on a place (such as a highway or a river), not a group of workers. The workers the government is seeking help from here, or at least some of them, have access to private homes. It is not a distinction without a difference. When you call upon patriotism, and you ask people to report to an official government repository suspicious activity, they will do so, whether it is in public or not. Establish a phone line to take reports of different (because isn't that really what "suspicious activity is?) activities in harbors? Okay. On roads? Okay. Establish a phone line to take reports of different activities no matter where you come across them? Not so good . . .
All in all, this is a giant step back in time, a step away from a truly open
society to a society where information is gathered by the governed and turned over
to the governing, for the purpose of casting shadows and doubts on individuals. As the DOJ emphasized in its recent statements, the program is not yet fully formed. Hopefully, it never will be.