In the Dark: U.S. Americans under Surveillance?

Government mass surveillance of the general public is an area of serious political, moral, legal and social implications regarding the use vs. abuse of high-technology. In an era defined by Bush as an ongoing "war on terror," cautionary reminders of George Orwell's classic novel, "1984," are inevitable.

An October 1, 2008, article by the Wall Street Journal reported that "the Department of Homeland Security will proceed with the first phase of a controversial satellite-surveillance program, even though an independent (Government Accountability Office) review found the department hasn't yet ensured the program will comply with privacy laws."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282336428992785.html

The article says that the "program is designed to provide federal, state and local officials with extensive access to spy-satellite imagery -- but no eavesdropping -- to assist with emergency response and other domestic-security needs," including those involving suspected terrorist activities.

The article points out Democratic congressional representatives, in key posts on intelligence and/or Homeland Security committees, who are concerned about government surveillance over-stepping the bounds of privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. Such concern stems largely from the fact that federal agencies under the Bush administration have already engaged in warrant-less wire-tapping of law-abiding Americans, and this with the cooperation of the giant telecom AT&T, for example. The article cited no views of Republican or third-party congress members.

So, what does this mean? What are the implications of more unlawful invasive activity by the government on the private activities of law-abiding U.S. Americans who don't even suspect they're being watched? What are the boundaries of justifiable use of such high-powered technology? Bottom line, how much of our fundamental liberties and freedoms are we willing to relinquish in the name of "national security"?

(Speaking of which, does the Department of Homeland Security consider the financial banking disaster a matter of national security? Are the corrupt financial institutions and reckless speculators who've destabilized our entire economy considered "terrorists" to our national safety? And why are sites of potential terrorist threat -- such as nuclear power plants, standard utility plants, and public water supplies -- still not adequately protected? How are our tax dollars to these federal agencies actually being spent?)

- Misako M.