Somebody is Watching. Why You Should Care.

There is a tired refrain uttered by the day’s political spin-meisters. It is all the rage to breathlessly defend liberty and claim freedom is under perilous attack. The charge echoes off the marble walls of state houses, has been heard in every corner of the U.S. Capitol and, while statistics aren’t kept, I suspect some variation of theme is uttered every 1.96 seconds on the campaign trial.

The prevalence of this talk might cause one to think the implosion of communism in the 90s was a hoax – tearing down the Berlin Wall was a secret plot to lull us into submission. I generally dismiss the alarmists’ call as politics at its lowest, magniloquence designed to scare people to the polls. That is until I hear well-meaning people say things like; this technology will be used exclusively to snare the bad guys – if you are law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about.

Something along those lines bubbled to the surface in Des Moines this week. The Polk County Sheriff’s Department owns and the Des Moines Police are buying license plate recognition equipment enabling them to check thousands of license plates with cameras posted on vehicles, in high traffic areas, in parking lots or anywhere, really. They aren’t catching people in the act of violating laws. They are used for trolling.

Defenders of the devices say the systems are efficient tools to be used to catch scofflaws and ne’re-do-wells. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but it isn’t a far leap to see how collecting millions of pieces of data in a search of today’s criminals might be misused tomorrow.

Polk County is going to place the cameras at the State Fair. Thousands of vehicles flooding the fairgrounds will be documented. No doubt the devices will turn up a few deadbeats and maybe a guy with a warrant will be nabbed on his way to the funnel cake stand.

Just remember, the computers will log when you go, too. You know, the day when you should be at work. That information will never go away. Years from now, some guy with a computer will be able to plug in your name to discover how many times you went to the Fair to get a deep fried chocolate Twinkie, or how many times you passed the device installed by the liquor store, or the one in front of your old high school girlfriend’s house. All of these acts are legal, but if that narc were to use the government collected data about your private life, he might be able to make you a suspect should a stash of stolen Twinkies in liquor bottles be found hidden under a particular former cheerleader’s front porch. OK, that’s silly. You haven’t driven by her house in years, have you?

I know I sound like one of those bell ringing, microphone hogging, we need to return America to the great nation our grandfathers fought to save folks I was complaining about earlier. I am not. At least, I don’t think I am.

I lead a simple life and I am hard-pressed to see how constant surveillance would harm me. If an officer were to tail me 24 hours a day, he would be infinitely more likely to drop dead of boredom than catch me doing anything more serious than rolling through a stop sign. Moreover, I really do not care who sees me going about my business. But, with technology advancing at the rate it does in this age, even I need to be wary of what the collection of data could mean to liberty.

Police officers do heroic work every day preventing crime and taking criminals off the street. I applaud them for their service. Yet, I think it is prudent to remember the assumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our system. When somebody says you have nothing to be afraid of because you are one of the good guys, they may be right. However, you should remain skeptical.

Free people must diligently defend the right of people to do as they please, travel where they choose and live as they wish. Granted, laws must be obeyed and others’ rights cannot be trampled in the process. However, if government creates an ever-expanding database of the movements and actions of all people, and government then allows that information to be mined in continuous fishing expeditions, freedom really will be under attack.

It is far easier to defend freedom before it is under attack than to resurrect it after it has been lost.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

It May be Time to Drug Test Legislators

State of Iowa Representatives Richard Arnold and Stewart Iverson proudly filed one of the first bills of the 2012 Iowa Legislative Session. They submitted a bill similar to others greeted with great fanfare in states like South Carolina, Kentucky, and Florida, and one in the U.S. House. Like those, their bill, House File 2038, establishes a requirement for random drug testing of any individual receiving unemployment compensation benefits in Iowa.

It is easy to understand why a politician who wants to be seen as strong on law and order would willingly hop on this bill’s bus. As long as he is willing to toss liberty to the curb on the way, that is. The Florida law was thrown out by a Federal Court for just that very reason.

Rep. Arnold said upon filing his bill, “The working man, we`re all subject to drug testing and if they`re gonna take the hard earned person`s money and give it to someone on welfare, I think they ought to be tested the same way.”

Right on, right?

Well, perhaps, until you consider what Mr. Arnold said. I am trying to avoid highlighting the inherent us against them way he argues his case – the “we” who are working men are good and the “they” receiving unemployment benefits may be something less – but it is difficult.

So, I turn to one of Arnold’s colleagues, Representative Tyler Olson, who suggested a way to lessen the division by saying, “If the goal is make sure anyone who gets a public benefit takes a drug test, then we really need to do a lot of work on the bill to expand it to the Governor, to legislators, people that are using public roads and the bill doesn`t say that.”

Maybe Mr. Olson is on to something with his sarcasm. Arnold and Iverson may not have gone far enough. Why limit this to just those receiving unemployment benefits? Perhaps everyone who receives a check from the State of Iowa or takes advantage of its infrastructure in any way should be subject to random tests to ensure no potential beneficiary is breaking any law. If we do this maybe I could get over my silly little suggestion that Arnold is grandstanding on the backs of those who need assistance in terrible times and Iowa can become a leader in making sure all laws are followed.

“Is any portion of your health care paid for through Medicaid? Drug test line forms here.”


“Want to visit a State Park? The line to have your tax records reviewed to make sure you have not broken any tax laws is to the left.”


“Last year’s flooding damaged your farm and you are seeking state assistance? You better have a clean driving record.”


“Before you to vote on that bill, Senator, we need you to fill this little cup.”

It would be silly to require such tests for those who are law-abiding citizens, right? Exactly.

Randomly drug testing those who regularly drive semi trucks is not done to subject a group of people to an indignity because they are lucky to have a job and others have to take drug tests too. Members of that profession are put under this microscope because a person high on dope can do a whole lot of damage with an 80,000-pound vehicle.

Drug testing those receiving unemployment benefits would cost money Iowa does not have with little public benefit to show for the expense and would further empower an already too intrusive government.

Those receiving unemployment benefits are not “them,” Mr. Arnold. Unemployment benefits were established to help those Iowans out-of-work regain their footing. If you feel Iowa’s drug laws need to be strengthened, write a law to do so. If you think too many people are receiving unemployment benefits, do the same. But, please, do not try to wrap yourself in the cloak of law and order by instituting a law that does neither.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com


This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Changing the Rules of the Lobbying Game

Decrying the power lobbyists wield here and in Washington has become a national pastime for the political elite and occasional voter both.  When not playing golf, dining or hobnobbing at high-dollar fundraisers with lobbyists, many a powerful Republican and Democrat lawmaker have been known to give lofty speeches about limiting the lobbyist.

Financial disclosure laws, restrictions on gifts and many other acts have been passed to convince the public the lobbyist/policymaker relationship is being kept on the up and up.  However, if one has an important item pending before a lawmaking body, a good lobbyist remains essential.  Tongue in cheek, more than a few have suggested what the American public needs is our own lobbyist. They may be on to something.

Even though he is a lobbyist, I have always liked Marty Ryan.  When we have lunch, he generally eats dessert first because he feels the best part of the meal shouldn’t be ruined by the main course.  While he is a lobbyist and his eating habits are unconventional, don’t assume he is the self-indulgent, head-in-the clouds type.  Marty may be the only lobbyist in Des Moines who has longer-than-shoulder length grey hair and his interest appears to have little to do with accumulating power.  More important, he is doing something interesting .

Marty used to lobby for the Iowa wing of the American Civil Liberties Union.  He is passionate about civil liberties, protecting individual privacy, keeping the doors and records of government open, and a myriad of other issues.  After many years, he left the structure of the ACLU and started hunting a new way to make a difference.  This year he is going to be back at the Capitol, but his client list is going to be a bit different than most who prowl those halls.  Marty has launched an experiment which he hopes will allow him to lobby directly for people.  He will not work for an organization, a front-group for corporate interests or a coalition of entities.  For a modest fee, a few dollars actually, Marty tells me he will represent individuals by keeping them informed of activities on the Hill and giving them a voice during the Legislative Session.

I have no idea how this experiment will turn out and I am undecided whether I will be one of his subscribers, but I have to hand to him.  It took a guy who turns the table on lunch, to think of way to turn the table on the lobbying game.

The voters just suffered through a rough and tumble election season and most of us would like nothing better than to take a break from politics.  However, in just a few weeks, Congress and the General Assembly will be back at it again.  The difference is the real work begins now.  Voters decide who gets to sit in the seats of power, but the people need to make sure their voices are heard long after the voting booths are packed away.  It is nice to think that individuals could go about their busy lives knowing somebody was paying attention to the details without the wasted expense and meddling influence of a huge bureaucracy.  You may not support Marty’s issues and I am not trying to convince you to do so.  I just can’t help hoping his experiment is a success.  It is time somebody changed lobbying for the better.

Tonight, I am having dessert first.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.