Mendax News Service has learned that
the Department of Homeland Security has set up a department within
itself to be known as The Bureau of Privacy. The new subsidiary
department will be in charge of monitoring the actions and
associations of the populace to root out terrorism before it happens.
The impetus for the new Bureau is
believed to be the plot – thwarted, thankfully – by a German
terrorist, Friedrich
Wöhler to dump calcium carbide in the toilets of public
restrooms and provide some kind of delayed ignition source.
Mendax contacted the spokesman for the
new bureau, P. Tom Coventry about plans to install cameras and
listening devices in all public restrooms.
Mendax: Mr. Coventry, It seems that
putting cameras in the stalls of public restrooms is a violation of
privacy by any standard. How do you justify this?
Coventry: We don't see the right to
privacy as absolute. After the underwear bomber tried to blow up a
plane with a bomb concealed in his underwear, pornoscanners were
installed in many airports with very little complaint from the flying
public. This is a reasonable extension of our mission to protect the
public while respecting people's privacy.
Mendax: This doesn't seem like you are
respecting people's privacy, it seems like you are violating it.
Coventry: We would never violate
anyone's privacy. This isn't a violation, it is a monitored privacy,
which enhances both privacy and security. After all, privacy is no
use without security. In order to mean anything, privacy must be
regulated. We don't have a right to unbridled privacy.
Mendax: Can you cite any precedents for
your opinion?
Coventry: Certainly, the scanners at
the airports I already mentioned and random road blocks, searches of
buses, luggage, domestic drones that are being contemplated and so
on.
Mendax: These things take place in
public places, not restrooms.
Coventry: We are not going to monitor
bathrooms in detatched single-family, privately owned residences,
only public buildings and buildings that the public has access to,
such as hotels, office buildings, stadiums, schools, public housing
or housing that receives funding from the public such as Section
Eight housing. We're not talking about Big Brother here.
Mendax: What if people object to this
new form of surveillance?
Coventry: There will always be a fringe
element that sees a privacy violation behind every government
initiative, but our mission is to ensure the safety of the public. We
can't do that without real time observation of any potential threat.
If we want to preserve our freedom, we've got to have enhanced
privacy.
Mendax: What you are talking about
doing doesn't sound like it will enhance privacy.
Coventry: Of course it will. What good
is privacy if you're dead? The Bureau of Privacy is going to do its
utmost to protect the public's privacy while still providing
security.
Mendax: Where is any of this new
surveillance authorized? Doesn't it at the very least violate the
Fourth Amendment?
Coventry: No, it doesn't. The Fourth
Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. We are not
searching or seizing anything, but merely observing.
Mendax: It seems to violate the intent,
if not the letter of the amendment, and even common sense.
Coventry: We can't let common sense
prejudice our interpretation of the law. There are various penumbras
and emanations that allow for surveillance. Besides that, the
Constitution is a living document, so we can never tell what it
really meant or what it will mean in the future.
Mendax: Thank you for your time Mr.
Coventry. I'm sure there will be some lawsuits over this.
Coventry: Since nobody is required to
use any of these facilities, we don't anticipate any legal roadblocks
to our plans. Everyone uses these facilities voluntarily.
