Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008
Amitai Etzioni defends privacy book; Bradley hasn't got a chance.
Apr 29, 1999 | Privacy pleas
BY MIKE GODWIN
(04/26/99)
Mike Godwin's extensive review of my new book, "The Limits of Privacy," raises numerous good issues which deserve detailed discussion. Today, I want to make just one point. Godwin keeps stressing that the right to privacy is meant to protect us from the government, like other rights. Hence, concern for the common good, my idea of balancing individual rights with social concerns, is off on the face of it.
Behind this point lies the idea, which many privacy advocates hold, that 100 percent of the public policy turf belongs to the right, and that the burden of proof for any concessions to pubic health and safety should be on those who seek them. Moreover, they ought to be subject to what lawyers call "strict scrutiny" -- i.e., the advocates of public interest should have to jump through several hoops.
All this disregards two major considerations pivotal to my book. The first is that the right to privacy is based in part of the Fourth Amendment (and I show in detail why it should be even more so rooted) and the Fourth Amendment explicitly declares there shall be no unreasonable search, thus recognizing there are reasonable searches -- those in the public interest. It does not read, like the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law allowing searches." The notion of balance is built right into the right to privacy.
More generally, while it is true that the amendments to the Constitution strongly protect us against the government, one should take to heart the whole important document. It opens with the statement "We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union" -- that is, with concern for the common good.
Two more quibbles: No, I do not think lawyers are irrational. I just agree with some of them and not others. And no, I did not cherry-pick the cases; otherwise I would not have touched encryption and national ID cards, knowing far too well that these are sacred cows for many; and I certainly would not have explored medical privacy, in which I found profit makers grossly undermining our privacy without any redeeming contribution to the common good.
-- Amitai Etzioni
Washington
How to gore Al?
BY JAKE TAPPER
(04/23/99)
Thanks to Jake Tapper for his thoughtful look at the long odds of Bill Bradley securing the Democratic nomination for president in 2000. I harbor a great deal of respect for Bradley -- a conscientious man who, like President Clinton and Vice President Gore, has the sort of broad intelligence and compassionate heart that we need in the people we send to the White House. However, I don't believe that Bradley possesses the tough campaigning skills necessary to keep the Oval Office in Democratic hands -- where it belongs. His slow-burning, ruminative run for the presidency thus far suggests his belief that the next election can be fought solely on the basis of "the right ideas for the right time." Well, that's simply not the case in our rancorous era, when there's more gray than black and white in politics. As Clinton has proved, winning the highest office in our land requires not only a depth of knowledge about current issues, but also a willingness to fight long and hard, and a savvy about when to borrow from your opponent's playbook.
Clinton has done a fine job as president, despite the hateful, partisan attacks against him by Republicans. He has restored my faith that presidents can work hard on behalf of all Americans, not just the wealthy minority kowtowed to by Reagan and Bush. And I have faith that Al Gore, whose commitment to his causes seems even stronger than Clinton's, will make a superb 43rd president. I'd hate to see a derisive campaign against Bradley harm Gore's chances to win the Oval Office in 2000, and thereby allow a Republican president to turn back the clock on the economic, social, and environmental progress we've made.
-- J. Kingston Pierce
Seattle
Get Salon in your mailbox!