privacy (guest writer #10)

“What’s the big deal?”

This is the response I hear most often when broaching the subject of privacy and the whole Snowden affair.

 

“My life is an open book. I’ve done nothing to be ashamed of, so I don’t really care who knows what I say or do.”

 

That may be true, but is that really the point?

 

Two of my children living in my house have a bevy of electronic devices (i.e. cell phone, iPods, e-readers, computers, etc.) One is 14 years old and the other is 22.

 

Now, for the 14-year old, we have total access. We know her passwords, we spot check text messages and emails, have friended her on Facebook, and look over her shoulder when she is online. It is not that we distrust her, but she is a child and still under our protection. Our job as a parent is both to keep her safe and to help her navigate through the good and bad of communicating electronically.  Whether or not you have set up the same rules for your teenager, you probably understand why we do what we do. We know that minors have yet to acquire the wisdom, life-experience, skills and discernment needed to live independently. In other words, children need parenting.

 

On the other hand, if we were to engage in this same level of involvement with our 22 year-old, you would say that we were over-bearing, over-reaching, over-protective, and, well, just wrong.

 

Why?

Because he is adult.

 

And as an adult, our gut tells us that he has some rights. These rights include the right to privacy, the right to expression, the right to his own beliefs, the right to not have unwarranted searches of his property and possessions, the right to protect himself and his property from invasion, and the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. If some of these sound familiar, it might be because our founding fathers guaranteed these rights in the amendments of the United States Constitution.

 

So what is the big deal about Snowden’s revelation that our government is actively collecting and storing every single electronic communication that you create?

 

Is it that our government no longer considers its citizens as independent adults? Are we seen by the government as children needing care and supervision? Do we want the people in our government to view themselves as responsible to oversee its citizens, or as public servants that work for and represent a free people?  And, do we as a people want our citizens to view themselves as responsible, self-governing, capable adults?

 

I think the big deal is in the answers to these questions.

 

Respectfully,

Sharon

 

the bro code

All these codes…  the man code, girl code, girlfriend code, baby code, even the traditional zip and area codes.  Last week this parent of teenagers unexpectedly stumbled against THE BRO CODE.  Do a little colloquial research.  This so-called “code” is a loosely unwritten, relational guide as to how manly young men are to interact with one another.

 

For example, “Bros do not make eye contact at urinals“… or… “a Bro doesn’t date another’s sloppy second” (note:  “a sloppy second” is the former girl of another)… “Bros never wear a Fanny Pack”… or my personal favorite… “when a Bro wants to do something stupid, first you try to talk the Bro out of it; if they still want to do it, you film it.”

 

Last week a situation existed in which one of my boy’s “Bro’s” had made a poor — albeit fairly minor — decision.  Interestingly, while my relationships with both son and “Bro” are solid, my son refused to divulge any more detailed information.  “You just don’t do that.  No true Bro snitches on another.”  Ah… THE BRO CODE.

 

And then it dawned on me…

 

When one Bro snitches on another Bro, the snitched-on Bro is then technically allowed to escape any questioning concerning their decision-making because they have now been wronged.  They become seemingly rightfully indignant.  They are then masterfully able to deflect attention from their behavior to the other’s snitching, thereby never having to wrestle with the appropriateness of what was actually snitched upon.

 

Notice last week’s arguably most newsworthy event…

 

Former CIA contractor, Edward Snowden, revealed confidential secrets about the US government’s spying programs.  Having fled to Hong Kong, Snowden revealed the classified information via interviews with the British press.  Among the revelations — and directly contradicting previous, recent CIA congressional testimony — Snowden shared that the American government is spying on its own people; they are collecting our phone records and monitoring our online activity.

 

To some, Snowden is an incredibly brave hero, selflessly willing to salvage himself for the sake of the greater good; to others he is a narcissistic traitor, threatening American security by now making enemy targeting easier.  Fascinatingly, Snowden has profoundly bridged the partisan divide, as claims of traitor or hero hail from both parties.

 

The US is saying little.  As increased reports detail the depth of the spying, we hear little denial; we do hear, however, that they intend to track down Edward Snowden.  Why?  Because Snowden snitched.  No true Bro snitches on another.

 

The Intramuralist still doesn’t have a clear cut conclusion in regard to the appropriateness of this so-called whistle-blowing.  I can conclude, no less, that when one snitches on another, the snitched-upon American government is now masterfully attempting to deflect attention from their behavior to Snowden’s snitching, thereby never having to wrestle with the appropriateness of what was actually snitched upon.

 

Sounds like the federal government should study other aspects of THE BRO CODE… for example… “A Bro never leaves a Bro behind”… and… “When a Bro is in doubt, he shall consider the actions of Chuck Norris before making a decision.”

 

We could use a little more Chuck Norris in government.  He wouldn’t be a snitch.  He’d be tough but compassionate.  He’d mean what he says and say what he means.  He also wouldn’t deflect attention elsewhere.

 

Respectfully,

AR