www.slate.com/id/2136147
But when it comes to the American scandal over President Bush's warrantless wiretaps, there's been a curious reaction from the other side of the Atlantic: silence. The fact is that in much of Europe wiretapping is de rigueur--practiced more regularly and with less oversight than in the United States. Most Europeans either don't know about this or, more likely, simply don't care. The extensive European taps are not new developments, made in the heat of passion after the London and Madrid bombings. European governments have been bugging phones for decades. In theory, the European Convention on Human Rights forbids "arbitrary wiretapping," but, as we've learned in the United States, arbitrary is in the ear of the wiretapper.
The three worst offenders are not countries you would suspect of playing fast and loose with civil liberties: Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands. Italian officials conduct tens of thousands of wiretaps each year. Technically, judicial approval is needed but since judges in Italy are "investigative," meaning they act more like our prosecutors, there is essentially no check on law enforcement's ability to eavesdrop. In Britain, police have an even easier time tapping phones. The home secretary, a Cabinet minister, approves all wiretaps. Or, to put it in American terms, imagine Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff authorizing wiretaps of anyone he deems fit--only without the pesky questions from the media and Congress.
Privacy International, calculates that, given the number of wiretaps in the UK, the home secretary approves a new wiretap every few seconds. "Obviously, it's impossible to give it the attention it needs," says Hosein. Britain did recently establish an Interception of Communications Commissioner, but he has limited authority; The only Brits safe from wiretapping are members of Parliament, though after the London bombing, there is now a move afoot to revoke their immunity. Britain's lax attitude toward telephone privacy dates back to the 1920s, when the British government owned the phone company. There was no need for court approval of wiretaps, since, in a way, the government would be asking itself for that approval. The Netherlands has the highest rate of wiretapping of any European country--a surprising fact, given the country's reputation for cozy coffee bars, not invasive police tactics. Dutch police can tap any phone they like, so long as the crime under investigation carries at least a three-year jail term.
Marc Perelman points out in Foreign Policy: "In addition to judicially ordered taps there are also 'administrative wiretaps' decided by security agencies under the control of the government." Perelman argues that most French know about these policies but don't seem to care, despite clear cases of abuse in the past. Most prominent is the Elysee Scandal--named after the palace where the late President Francois Mitterrand set up an undercover listening room.
What's interesting--and disturbing--about the Elysee Scandal is that at the time, French authorities had justified the surveillance as a necessary tool to fight terrorism. Earlier this month, in one of the more bizarre cases of Euro-tapping, Greek officials acknowledged that 100 cell-phone lines were tapped during the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Oddly, all those targeted were involved with national security, including Prime Minster Kostas Karamanlis. Vodafone, the mobile phone company, learned of the wiretapping when customers complained they were not receiving their messages and calls. An investigation revealed that someone had installed spy software. In December, the European parliament approved new rules requiring telecommunications companies to retain customers' telephone and Internet records for up to two years. The directive passed in record time, despite objections from phone companies and Internet providers (all that record-keeping is expensive), as well as privacy advocates. This means that European authorities can tell not only what was said in a phone call, but who was on the other end and where they were located. The United States lobbied hard for this new EU policy, even though telecommunications companies in this country are under no such record-keeping obligation. When it comes to consumer information, Europeans guard their privacy much more fiercely than Americans do. European companies can't legally share most consumer information, and cases of identity theft are much less common. So, why are Europeans so nonchalant when it comes to government eavesdropping? When Osman Hussain, a suspect in the botched July 21 London bombing, fled Britain, police traced his journey--across the United Kingdom to France and then Italy, where he was arrested--by tapping his cell phone. Europeans tend to trust their private information with governments, not corporations. So, while they wouldn't dream of divulging their credit card number to a telemarketer they will gladly hand it over to a government clerk. The state is seen as more benevolent than those greedy, Americanized corporations. And Europeans have no equivalent to the American Constitution, which enshrines the right of individuals to be free from government coercion. Privacy International's Hosein draws on this constitutional tradition when he explains why Europeans don't bristle at wiretapping that would appall Americans. In Europe, he notes, there are plenty of pressure groups fighting for the rights of consumers, but very few lobbying on behalf of citizens. There is no European equivalent of the ACLU, pushing back against government intrusions. So, next time you're in Europe, feel free to hand out your credit card number willy-nilly.
took issue with the libertarian argument that freedom is indivisible: "The notion that freedom is indivisible--if you lose a little, you have lost it all; if one person is deprived of liberty, then we all are--is sweet, and useful for indoctrinating children.
|
http://csua.com/feed/