The NSA Has Problems; Maybe Google Is The Solution

Here's another gander at the National Security Agency surveillance kerfuffle. Max Boot says, "Forget privacy, we need to spy more." He makes the case that, "When it comes to the war on terror, the biggest advantage we have comes from our electronic wizardry." There's this huge outcry about the alleged program to run myriad phone records through a computer (names deleted) to look for potential terrorist patterns, but it does seem silly for the government not to use this information when the average person could find so much more online.

With a few keystrokes, Google will display anything posted by or about you. A few more keystrokes can in all probability uncover the date of your birth, your address and telephone number and every place you have lived, along with satellite photos of the houses and how much you paid for them, any court actions you have been involved in and much, much more.

It is only a little more work to obtain your full credit history and Social Security number. Or details of your shopping, traveling and Web-browsing habits. Such information is routinely gathered and sold by myriad marketing outfits. So it's OK to violate your privacy to sell you something — but not to protect you from being blown up.

Maybe the NSA should just use Google to hunt for terrorist info. It could be Google's new ad campaign: "Need To Find Osama? We Know Where He's Shopping." At the very least they could find out which e-tailers are popular with the terrorist crowd, and where they find the best deals on incendiary devices. Why should the agencies charged with protecting us have less information than telemarketers?

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Interesting Update: Looks like Bellsouth is demanding a retraction from USA Today, the paper that started the whole NSA phone database story. The company claims not only did they not give phone records to the NSA, but that they were never even asked. They're facing lawsuits accusing them of violating privacy rights, and now it looks like USA Today could face a lawsuit of their own if they don't either prove it, or retract it.

Fueling Dictatorships

Here's another take on the gas tax issue, from Max Boot, who says that, rather than decreasing the tax, the government should be increasing it as a way to direct the country toward alternative sources of fuel, and away from foreign dependence.

The most important step would be to increase the federal gasoline tax, currently a paltry 18.4 cents a gallon. Congress should enact a sliding-scale tax that rises as oil prices fall and vice versa. That would shape demand, which would in turn shape prices. The goal would be to create a "floor" at, say, $50 a barrel, which would avert the kind of precipitous price collapse that in the past has eviscerated investment in alternative energy sources and kept low-cost oil producers such as the Saudis and Russians in the driver's seat.

Boot explains that, as things stand now, when we fill the gas tank we are funding dictators around the world.

Of the top 14 oil exporters, only one is a well-established liberal democracy — Norway. Two others have recently made a transition to democracy — Mexico and Nigeria. Iraq is trying to follow in their footsteps. That's it. Every other major oil exporter is a dictatorship — and the run-up in oil prices has been a tremendous boon to them.

He makes some good points. Have a look.

Hat tip: Instapundit