Spying vs. snooping vs. monitoring: Our challenge

Monitoring and snooping are not designed to target the individual except when the individual steps out of the limits of acceptable behavior. However, spying starts when either an individual is monitored with the intent of finding out something suspected (not shown, yet) or is collateral to events or people known to be under investigation. Spying is personal, directed, probing, using all available means. There were two men at the Boston Marathon who happened to have backpacks. The probe into them was swift, thorough and highly invasive. Fortunately, the real men were found which allowed that spy attack to be shelved (pity the New York papers did not do such a good job, captioning their photo as the bombers). But spying can also be about collecting data on a broad scale, to put out a fine mesh net across all communication, recording everything possible, in case later probes need historic data to make a match, to catch a perpetrator or a ring. As any fisherman will tell you, if the holes in your net are super-small, you will catch fish you never wanted and tons of waste. So what the spying teams do is write sophisticated computer algorithms (programs) to sift through all this data, looking for patterns, connections. If you know one phone number linked to a terrorist cell, you can see all the phone numbers that ever called that number, and who they called, and who the next layer called and so forth. This is not monitoring, this is not snooping, this is spy work, this is deliberate targeting. Designed to target, made to hone in, ruthless, determined spying. The problem with this collection of information, which on the face of it seems bland and actually life-enhancing, is that it is recorded, it is interpreted by machines, follows a hidden agenda and someone’s interpretation of the law. If, for whatever reason, you are targeted because of a wrong number you dialed; if, for whatever reason, the bad website that Google linked you to; if, for whatever reason, your kid wandered around the Internet curious about bombs or weapons — if those sites or phone numbers are machine-sifted and red-flagged, you could find your life being turned upside down as the might of those agencies is brought to bear, just in case. This seemingly benign investigation may not seem like such a big deal, right?What if, tomorrow, the laws of society were rewritten to say that (to choose a silly example) any contact with the terrorist organization known as “Sam’s Pizza” labels you as a potential terrorist? Those same machines would back-sift through all your calls, Internet usage, IM messages. That pizza you bought on holiday two years ago suddenly labels you as a potential terrorist. Those same computers tell your bank, your credit card companies, your employer, your power company, your cable company, even your car company. Tag, you are it — along with anyone you ever talked to. Overnight most of your friends and reputation, everything you have is gone. Go ahead, prove otherwise.That’s why the Constitution has the Bill of Rights as its first amendments, especially the Fourth: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The problem with all this probing by the Feds is that the nation may have probable cause against enemies unknown, not against you individually, but their net is so fine, they catch you as well. They have no “probable cause” against you. That is why all this spying and so-called benign monitoring and commercial snooping is un-Constitutional. You have a right to make them prove probable cause first, not in hindsight.Peter Riva, a former resident of Amenia Union, now lives in New Mexico.