Freedom vs. Technology

Quick: Which Amendment to the Constitution goes furthest in protecting our freedom?

Of course, there is no clear answer: The First, Fourth and Fifth all play a crucial role in maintaining that which we call freedom. The Fourth (unreasonable searches) and Fifth (self-incrimination) appear to be the most susceptible to changes from technology, and we are constantly forced to re-evaluate our stances and interpretation.

Every time we get an advance in electronic technology, it is easier for law enforcement to think, "Ah, what we could do to ferret out the criminals in our society!" However, there is usually a trade-off involving a loss of privacy for us, and it is these trade-offs that we constantly need to evaluate.

Very interesting article up at The New Yorker this morning concerning Lavabit's (Lavabit is a secure email service) brief to the 4th Circuit of Appeals to allow it to resurrect its secure email service. Lavabit was shut down by its owner and founder after the government asked that it 1) hand over its encryption keys 2) create an easily traceable system wherein every email could be used to identify sender and recipient.

While it is easy to think "but I don't do anything wrong, why should I care?" I think the analogy that the orders "constitute that a city give the police a key to every home in search of one man" places it in perspective. We routinely find criminals without going to such intrusive lengths, why should we trade our privacy? More importantly, we only have much to lose if we do so, with no proven gain to offset the loss.

Another Term?

I had an interesting conversation with a couple of co-workers today. We were discussing the potential for changes to our country's laws to eliminate the discrimination against gays and lesbians with regards to marriage.

Now, I've a long time felt that justice should be blind, and a blind application of our current marriage laws would not even ask the gender of the applicants – just the basics: Are you currently married? Are you of age? Do you consent? (Are you not too closely related?)

However, I've also felt that the term marriage is so embedded in our lexicon, in our society that we will have to continue to use it to describe the exclusive partnership that is two people coming together to share, care for and love each other. We will continue to go to the local government to obtain our Marriage License, we will still have the overseer of our ceremony sign the Marriage Certificate to show to all that we have publicly affirmed the required vows.

What was interesting in my co-workers' view was that the term marriage is not that central to our concepts: They maintained that the majority of America would be willing to jettison the term if it meant creating equality before the law for all. That instead of having marriage and 'skim milk' unions, we could simply (for the purposes of the law) replace 'marriage' with some other term, and re-write our current laws to eliminate the discrimination of asking the applicants if they represent one of each sex.

In this implementation, 'marriage' and 'wedding' would be non-legal terms reserved for use whenever and however people wished, but the set of laws that governed co-ownership, rights of survivorship, divorce, would collectively be referred to under a separate term – we would get a 'Legal Union' License, have a 'Legal Union' Certificate signed by the proper witness.

I find this intriguing for a couple of reasons. Number one, it eliminates the the arguments of many that 'marriage' is something that cannot be defined by our democratic legal system; i.e., if we take 'marriage' out of the legal lexicon and no longer use it to refer to a set of laws, they cannot argue that we have redefined it or dirtied it, etc. Want to use 'marriage' to refer to something specific? Fine. Our laws don't recognize 'marriage' as a legal construct, so use it as you wish.

Second, I find it intriguing simply because I had not considered that it would be a possibility – that Americans were ready to remove the term from our legal system and simply move on. My co-workers give more credit to the ingrained fairness and lack of historical concern to our fellow citizens. So I am curious: Are they correct? Are we ready to just drop this whole affair, rename our laws, restore the veil of blindness to justice, and move on?

One of the unsolved points will be, of course, what terms do we use to refer to the collection of laws that currently govern the union of two individuals? I used 'Legal Union' above as place-holders only, not suggested replacements. One co-worker suggested we appeal to our Latin roots, and use terms such as 'Nodus' (Knot), Ligo (Bind), or perhaps (and our favorite): Caveo (Beware)!

Try them out! Does it work? Imagine our children going to City Hall to get their Nodus License, signing their Ligo Certificate, or perhaps, exchanging their vows in an elaborate Caveo Ceremony (after presenting their license and completing with the solemn signing of the Caveo Certificate.)

Are we ready for that? Is this really a simpler solution to moving forward towards Equality Before The Law with regards to two-person joinings? If we just sweep aside the freighted term, can we achieve the fairness we seek and believe we should give to every member of society?

Stop The Violence Fetish!

Alright. Enough. You are a fool, ethically immoral, and a purveyor of violence if you believe that death is a fair retribution for petty theft. What I don't understand is how many people I formerly thought well of have revealed their heartless, violent tendencies after the awful shooting at Sandy Hook: Those of us who reel at the though of innocent youngsters losing their lives in a pointless act, who believe that one action (of the many) that may counter such future occurrences is reasonable, considered limitations on the types of weapons that may be privately owned are suddenly under a barrage from those who see (and are posting) that violence is the solution to everything, that bigger, more lethal means are their right:
Stop.
We have been attempting for 6000 years of recorded human civilization to reduce violence, to build peaceful means of co-existing, teaching understanding, tolerance, and that the first response should not be to reach for a knife, sword, or gun.
We have attempted to build a judicial system second to none that metes fair punishment for the crimes committed, that accords all individuals equality before the law, that gives every individual the forum to argue their innocence, or at least to explain any mitigating circumstances that their fellow citizens (the jurors) should perhaps take into account when declaring guilt or innocence, that the judge should consider when declaring punishment. All that is taken away when a citizen takes it into their own hands and shoots and kills another - and is an action that we should always inspect carefully and with prejudice towards the shooter until it can be justified as an act of self-preservation.
Granted, we have much work to do: Neither the system nor the means to implement it are perfect - but that is exactly the point: We only can reduce violence in society if we err on the side of withholding our own violent actions, our own violent thoughts, and consider carefully the small (and hopefully diminishing) situations where we would allow violence.
Considered push back if we attempt to define those situations too tightly is welcome, but wholesale glorification of those who use violence inappropriately, glorification of means of inflicting extreme violence, and glorification of vigilantism is wrong and should and will be met with disapproval by the rest of us.
 There is no reason for those who wish a peaceful society to remain silent - your violence fetish needs to be called for what it is: A desire to circumvent the laws and traditions of our land, a lack of respect for your fellow citizens and for the lives of others. Your violence fetish is a desire for the return of vigilantism and an overturn of the institutions we have built in for the goal of creating a fair, just, and non-violent society. We, as the citizens of that society are speaking. Put your gun away, look at the darkness of your heart, shut your mouth, and join us in exploring means to improving the project we have started. 
We are not free when that freedom is tenuously held by the threat of violence: We are free when thoughts of violence are replaced by thoughts of mutual respect, when we move through society secure that the non-violent ideals we hold are held by those around us. We are largely there, and any Faux-Neanderthal that would take us back needs to be reminded of the accomplishments of non-violence, and of the accomplishments of the society we have built, and that the rest of us are not willing to consider a return and are fed up with those who would take us back.