The ramifications of this are sinister in so many ways--not just that it was possible for the GRU to do this, but that it was possible for the USG to figure out precisely *how* and *when* they did it.
Hannah Arendt believed totalitarianism rested not upon the edifice of an all-powerful state, but on the erasure of the difference between public and private life. The digital age erodes that difference,, especially with the rise of social media. It primes us for authoritarianism,
most of all because every keystroke leaves a permanent record. There is no way out. No one can earn a living, transact commerce, talk to friends, participate in modern life, without the Internet and the surrender of privacy its use entails. You have to keep your head down,
try to obey the law, and hope the state takes no interest you, because you're unimportant. (Or join a nunnery.) We all live now in a Panopticon surrounded by cell phones; our browsing histories betray us; we shed data with every gesture.
These indictments mock our belief that we are free people who choose our own governments. And they tell us we are only an unwise law or two away -- passed after a terrorist attack, perhaps - from creating a total surveillance state.
Even now, the idea that we are a dignified, free, and self-governing people seems quaint. It's all the more painful given that Trump tells us the threat comes from our near-impregnable southern border--while it's our virtual borders, in fact, that are wide open.
We truly *don't* know who the people crossing the virtual borders are, what they do, where they came from, or what they want. And by the time we figure it out it's too late.
.
.
Trump tells us that if we don't have a border, we don't have a country.
That's true, but his notion of a border is technologically obsolete.
The idea that our government--or our corporations--may be trusted with these powers seems equally quaint.
That's true, but his notion of a border is technologically obsolete.
The idea that our government--or our corporations--may be trusted with these powers seems equally quaint.
We sure don't trust governments not to violate unreasonably the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. But how many US citizens' privacy will be unreasonably violated before this investigation is done?
I don't blame the USG. The GRU attacked us. But I wish the media had the foresight to see that the answers we come up with to these questions will change the meaning of freedom, privacy, and dignity forever.
I don't much care about Kavanaugh's commitment to stare decisis. That's tea-leaf reading that tells me little. I care much more about how his mind might work when faced with these kinds of cases; how he'll decide what limits to place on the use of this technology.
or other technology akin to it. Those decisions will shape the 21st century world.
And legally, it's almost terra incognito, so we'd do well do appoint someone wise and foresighted.
And legally, it's almost terra incognito, so we'd do well do appoint someone wise and foresighted.
