US Government Official Wants to Redefine Privacy

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Who are these people in Washington?  What do they think they're doing? 

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is very clear:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall

not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Mr Kerr seems to believe that, because the capacity exists for government to monitor and catalog private communication, that capacity should be used.  On the contrary.  The United States government was restricted by the Fourth Amendment from this sort of activity, and with good reason.  The men who fought for independence from the King of England knew that if a government were allowed to spy on its citizens, the power to spy and the information gathered by that process would be turned against political dissenters.   They understood that a government that could monitor and silence its political opponents would cease to be a government of the people.  They understood that government does not grant rights to people. 

The internet does not change any of these basic facts.  In the past, the government could open private letters and arbitrarily search and arrest people.  Today, they can more easily and surreptitiously intercept emails and telephone conversations.  Technological facility does not in any way sanctify illicit surveillance.

This "government knows best" attitude is nothing new.  After all, why would the Fourth Amendment have been drafted unless that human tendency were well known?  It is human nature we are contending with.  Those with power seek to expand their power--often with protestations of noble intent, such as "safety" and "security."  A charitable assessment of Mr Kerr's statements would conclude that he and his ilk seek only to protect us from the "terrorists" of the world.  Those of us who remember the Cold War recall the loyalty oaths and fear-mongering and see parallels: then, as now, we suffered more abuse at the hands of our self-appointed protectors than from the nebulous "enemy" ostensibly hiding under the bed.