Today’s POV blog

Should state and federal officials be given the freedom to pursue dangerous criminals without disregard for public rights such as privacy?

In 1949, the International News Service wanted to publish an article about the ‘toughest guys‘ that the FBI would like to catch. The article was so popular that the FBI officially released the list to aid in the capture of these fugitives. Today, the FBI’s most-wanted list includes the likes of Usama Bin Laden.

These criminals have often committed multiple heinous crimes, extortion, bank robberies, money laundering, drug importing, and murder. However, these criminals who are US citizens share the same rights as every other citizen of the US. Should these rights be forfeited for those the FBI deems most wanted?

It may be a slippery slope. Select fugitives losing their rights has the potential of evolving into criminals with lesser offenses losing their rights. On one hand, we have the overwhelming need for public safety and on the other, personal privacy.

A sterling example of this dichotomy is the Patriot Act. In response to our safety concerns after 9/11, the Patriot Act was passed to allow officials to use any means to provide surveillance, detain, arrest, and question people who are thought to be, or might hold information leading to, terrorists. This act has led to many people being locked away and being interrogated in Guantanamo Bay without the basic rights that you or I believe we are guaranteed. Some of the people detained are American citizens, whose rights were forfeited under the application of the Patriot Act.

Are we on the right path? Are our personal-privacy rights of less importance than the need to protect the population?

Phamatech Inc., is now distributing a rapid-results, diagnostic, at-home drug test. In a CVS Pharmacy commercial, they are promoting this testing kit for use on your children.

Phamatech claims they are in support of a drug-free America, but perhaps a more common use will turn out to be when someone who is using drugs wants to ensure for themselves that their urine is clean before an impending, mandated drug test.

In an upper-class neighborhood in Washington, the city council has had cameras installed at intersections that monitor every vehicle coming into the city. It’s not without warning, however, there are also signs posted telling you that you are being videotaped.

According to the Seattle Times article, these cameras capture all license-plate numbers in a crime-prevention measure that one council member says “outweighs concern over privacy.”

Within seconds of entering Medina, the license-plate number is run through a database and if a hit surfaces for a felony, the information is transmitted instantaneously to police who take immediate action. The captured information of every person entering the city isn’t verified and discarded, it’s stored for 60 days — even if you turn out to be a law-abiding citizen just out for a Sunday drive. Archiving the data allows police an opportunity for a second look if a crime occurs anytime within 60 days of your visit.

Doug Honig, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, said such a system smacks of privacy violations. “Government shouldn’t be keeping records of people’s comings and goings when they haven’t done anything wrong,” he said. “By actions like this, we’re moving closer and closer to a surveillance society.”

Wired.com has posted a story that a Mexican company — Solusat – has begun a microchip-tracking service purportedly for tracking children at risk for kidnapping. This new device is about the size of a grain of rice and is injected beneath the skin. The VeriChip transmits a radio signal so that authorities can easily find the child (or as it’s currently used, cattle).

With the endorsement of Mexico’s National Foundation of Investigations of Robbed and Missing Children, Carlos Altamirano, Solusat’s associate general director, said there are “projects on the table, but one form of finding (children) is by putting scanners in strategic locations where a search is being conducted.” This might include walk-through scanners in malls, bus stations, and other key locations.

Some officials are concerned about the safety of a child that has been “chipped.” After all, won’t the kidnapper simply cut out the device?

Lauren Weinstein, creator of the Privacy Forum, also has warned that chipping children and others with a LoJack-type device to track their movements could violate their civil liberties.

The VeriChip manufacturer, Applied Digital Solutions, has indicated that it plans to roll out the chip and tracking service in other countries, including the US.