The Atlantic

Would You Sacrifice Your Privacy to Get Out of Quarantine?

The coronavirus has reignited the post-9/11 debate about security and civil liberties. The U.S. response to that tragedy has lessons for how to manage the trade-offs this time around.
Source: The Atlantic

As general counsel of the NSA in the 1990s, Stewart Baker advocated for limiting the government’s intelligence-gathering powers in the name of civil liberties. Then the 9/11 attacks happened, and Baker concluded that the limits he’d supported contributed to the security lapse. So he began pushing the case for surveillance—first while serving as a member of the George W. Bush administration, then by writing op-eds, hosting podcasts, and sparring with opponents who believe that his proposals endanger fundamental rights. As the country struggles to contain the coronavirus, he thinks that many Americans will experience a conversion like his, becoming more willing to make sacrifices to their privacy. He captured the mood of the pro-surveillance camp in the title of a recent podcast episode: “Is Privacy in Pandemics Like Atheism in Foxholes?”

Baker and other surveillance proponents say that controversial measures could save lives. Baker particularly supports the idea that the government should be able to access contact data recorded by your smartphone’s Bluetooth signal and, when necessary, location data recorded by its GPS. Tech companies, meanwhile, have reportedly proposed using thermal-imaging sensors and deploying security cameras with facial-recognition software to track infected people and their contacts. These ideas are meeting resistance from privacy advocates and reigniting a debate about surveillance and civil liberties that gained momentum after the September 11 attacks. Baker, who was also an early member of the Department of Homeland Security, told me he believes the attacks showed that an overcommitment to privacy left the country exposed; afterward, the balance tilted heavily toward surveillance, leading to practices such as warrantless wiretapping and the bulk collection of phone records. But his opponents have a different view of what happened after 9/11: The government leveraged public fears to expand its power, many new surveillance measures did little to make the country safer, and the rights Americans gave up have been hard to win back.

To get a sense of this renewed debate, I spoke with Baker and others who have spent years trying

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from The Atlantic

The Atlantic3 min read
They Rode the Rails, Made Friends, and Fell Out of Love With America
The open road is the great American literary device. Whether the example is Jack Kerouac or Tracy Chapman, the national canon is full of travel tales that observe America’s idiosyncrasies and inequalities, its dark corners and lost wanderers, but ult
The Atlantic6 min read
There’s Just One Problem With Gun Buybacks
One warm North Carolina fall morning, a platoon of Durham County Sheriff’s Office employees was enjoying an exhibit of historical firearms in a church parking lot. They were on duty, tasked with running a gun buyback, an event at which citizens can t
The Atlantic8 min readAmerican Government
The Return of the John Birch Society
Michael Smart chuckled as he thought back to their banishment. Truthfully he couldn’t say for sure what the problem had been, why it was that in 2012, the John Birch Society—the far-right organization historically steeped in conspiracism and oppositi

Related Books & Audiobooks