Is There Something Better than Big Brother? Big Neighbor?

Did McVeigh or any other domestic terrorist change our society by what they did? Did their acts result in the trampling of our Bill of Rights? What is so different about the foreign bogeyman? While some may argue that the devastation of 9/11 was not comparable to anything that happened before or since, I argue that normal intelligence channels--w/o  present-day eavesdropping--did manage to warn the powers that be who, for reasons we may never fully know, chose not to act on it. The same thing happened with the Boston Bombers--no one was paying adequate attention. 

Some may argue that widespread surveillance may catch domestic terrorists. But we need to remember the crucial aspect of the surveillance process as it is now promulgated. It is necessary to first become aware of an overseas terrorist and his phone numbers without which we cannot tie domestic players with foreign enablers. Here in the states, the NSA would first need to have known of McVeigh's membership in a terrorist organization. From what I know, he didn't have any such associations and, to my knowledge, all domestic terrorists are lone wolves not easily identified by any means now in use.

It has been shown repeatedly that human intelligence (humint as it is called in the trade) works very well if only the agencies were more efficient. The Unabomber was caught through humint from his brother. What if humint were encouraged? A fraction of the money we are now spending could be used to reward those who tip the authorities. Even if the majority of a country's Muslim population believed secretly in a successful Al Qaeda, you would find humint if the price were right; it's just human nature and the power of the almighty buck.

But how would I feel if I were unjustly accused by a neighbor of planning terrorism? Well, if I knew that neighbors were prone to do this, I would open up my activities more. Case in point, before the Boston bombings, I had purchased two pressure cookers.  What if a neighbor had come by and had seen the two packages in my kitchen? Humint procedures would dictate that he/she contact someone about it but if my life were an open book (which I strive for, btw), that neighbor would know that I was really into making homemade sauerkraut and wanted to have two recipes going at one time. Now, someone reading this might say "hold on a second sauerkraut isn't made in a pressure cooker," and they'd be right but for the sake of this discussion, I'd have to reveal that a pressure cooker at room temperature is the ideal way for a novice to make sauerkraut. As it turns out, they mostly went unused but that's because, when I bought them,  I overlooked the fact that they were aluminum and I didn't like the idea of acidic sauerkraut coming into contact with aluminum. I took to lining the inside with plastic but it wasn't ideal. And what if I had been dissimulating about the sauerkraut? Well, I wouldn't have any to show for my trouble, would I?

We clamor for transparency in government and rightfully so; but we should start at home and in our neighborhoods. Inventors and armed anarchists are the only people I can think of who might object to practicing transparency with their neighbors and the former only because of patent laws which prohibit public exposure before the patent is filed. Furthermore, we shouldn't fear the nosey neighbor. The neighbor who tells on you even anonymously takes on risks. He/she would lose credibility if none of his/her suspicions panned out and might risk prosecution if it is ever shown that complaints were sent in as retaliation for some harm allegedly done to them by the "suspect" neighbor. It's a win-win, the informant is motivated by either money or love of country and homeland security is made more efficient and less intrusive (remember we're maintaining transparency as a defense against it).

What of the individual who chooses to lead a totally private life? That's OK. I can't see how that person would object to the government finding out--through corporate transparency for instance--that he just purchased two pressure cookers. Of course, when such purchases are submitted to government, the consumer should be advised of the fact beforehand: all purchases of pressure cookers are reported to, e.g., the FBI. Likewise, "all purchases of fertilizer are also reported." Although red flags, they do not elicit a visit from a swat team. Instead data is accumulated until an algorithm says that there is too much coincidence going on; and, even then, the individual is queried by mail or phone before the FBI is sent to his residence on a fact-finding mission.

Some may immediately say this program is no different than that of present day government surveillance and just as intrusive to which I'd reply that present programs do not use "probable cause" other than some possibly accidental communication with a targeted phone number or website. While I understand why the government would not want to follow-up on every odd-ball lead it receives, eventually, the algorithms will get better. Yes, there is something ugly about neighbor spying on neighbor but, A., it has always gone on and, B., that neighbor has a vested interest in keeping himself and his family safe from terrorism; his motivations are noble. So are the government's, you say; and many are, indeed, so motivated but b/c of lack of transparency, citizens envision other more nefarious motivations like the military/industrial/congressional complex and, eventually perhaps, misuse of surveillance programs for political or personal ends. If we begin with human intelligence and suitable cause we mitigate such concerns. Humint works; we just need to use it correctly.

What of the government's fear that a majority of the population may "look the other way" because they secretly don't like government and wouldn't give agents the time of day. First order of business here is to have our culture stress non-violence in everything it does. Only then will the people be more apt to denounce those who might be engaging in it. The Boston bombers had friends back at the dorm that tried to hide evidence. Why did they do this? I don't know the answer but does bullying, unethical wars, and police brutality play a role? If we see brutality on the part of the government (both here and abroad), what can we expect from the people? A few might say violence in kind, after all, violence begets itself; but others might say apathy and therein lies a monster even more horrible than jingoists and police state adherents for the latter can have a change of heart if educated to alternatives. Apathy, however, will doom us as a nation as it has so many empires before us.