Make Civil Liberties Concerns A Priority? Blame Canada!
Poor Michael Chertoff, wanton god of safety, debonair trollop of anti-terror, and man with a mission that has no room for a regard for individual liberties and the rule of law, has run into a speed bump of sorts on his quest for power: Canada.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff caused a little ruckus up north a couple weeks ago as he was pushing his plan to share databases of international air travelers’ fingerprints with the Canadians, Brits and Aussies.
In an interview with an excessively squeamish Canadian reporter, Chertoff was told: "Some are raising that the privacy aspects of this thing, you know, sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing."
Nonsense, Chertoff responded. "Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world. They’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private," he said, according to Canadian news reports and privacy lawyer Peter Swire, a senior fellow and guest blogger at the Center for American Progress.
Absolutely. But the old-fashioned Canadians seem to think otherwise. They even have someone who monitors privacy issues, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, who promptly wrote the minister of public safety and preparedness to object, noting that Canadian law "defines fingerprints as personal information" and that "fingerprints constitute extremely personal information for which there is clearly a high expectation of privacy." That’s why, she wrote with a hint of huffiness, "Canadians rightly expect their government to respect their civil liberties and personal information from abuse."
Oh yeah? Well, our Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that you have to have probable cause before you haul someone off and fingerprint them. Justice Byron R. White wrote the opinion, joined by Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, no less.
But in wartime, maybe we have different expectations, okay? As Chertoff, who after all was recently a federal appeals judge, knows quite well, no one should expect privacy in a restaurant or anywhere else where a fingerprint might be left.
And we don’t. That’s why many diners here are beginning to use gloves when they eat at restaurants and some even wear those hospital booties. Others prefer just a discreet swipe of utensils and glassware with a Wet-Nap to ensure against DNA retrieval from saliva. (There is a growing — and deplorable — trend to bring personal cutlery, but that really seems excessive and, in finer establishments, downright disrespectful, especially if it’s plastic.)
Those wacky Canadians clearly didn’t get the memo that staying true to your founding principles or holding fast to the rule of law and ethics are so 1776. Get with the "fear, fear, fear, protect me daddy!" mindset, eh?
(YouTube is the work-friendly Robin Williams at the Oscars version of "Blame Canada!" If you want the authentic, naughty one, click here. But put down your beverages first…)