Is it common that Americans are paranoid about their privacy?
There's been incidents before or something?
- - - Updated - - -
Because I see people just type in "1984" in the comments
1984 is a reference to the novel and in general about overbearing, ever present, totalitarian government as described in the novel, and the belief that we are moving closer and closer to just such a state.
Paranoia is a strong word. Americans have a very healthy suspicion of government encroachment in their lives, both direct and indirect.
Going to rant a bit here:
We, historically, have protected our freedoms and our civil liberties with ferocity, even when it may result in criminals having an easier go of it. It is not alright for government to invade your privacy in the home, for instance, unless it is totally incidental (just happen to sweep a camera across your window and see you stabbing someone) or they have reasonable suspicion of an imminent crime taking place (they hear a scream, you don't answer the door, they can bust down your door).
There certainly have been cases of abuse of surveillance and search power. Police cannot, for instance, conduct a search of a home when they arrest someone, until they have attained a search warrant after submitting probable cause that there is evidence of a crime there to be found. This may seem silly, but it is important because innocents are arrested from time to time and getting a warrant is an important check on the police to make sure they aren't ahead of themselves. It is also important because people get arrested for lesser crimes (jay walking or a driving offense, for instance) and they have no reasonable suspicion that you have done any other crime, so they should not be able to look through your things in your home merely because they arrested you for a traffic accident.
Another example which may come into play on this specific issue of use of drones: there was a recent supreme court case in which a person was seeking a conviction be overturned because the police attached a GPS tracking device to his car without a warrant. The police then used the tracking device to establish patterns of movement and evidence of location, which lead to other warrants being issued and his eventual conviction on a drug charge. The case was brought by a man that was guilty of drug trafficking, but the case was not about him or his situation specifically, it was about the right of the government to effectively invade your privacy of movement within society without a search warrant.
The court found that the government *does* have this right, much to the amazement of many, including myself. They have the right to trespass on your property, attach tracking devices to your vehicle(s) and track your movements for an indefinite time without warrant or even probable cause. The reasoning? Because cops can visually track and follow you as you move about society (either by helicopter or by following in a car) there is no reason they should have to expend those kinds of resources when they could effectively do the same thing by tagging your vehicle and tracking it electronically.
Left unsaid is if they can use stop light cameras and other surveillance technology to do the same, perhaps even well after the movements occurred. This is very much in line with the plot devices of 1984 and is cause for quite reasonable concern for many US citizens, not just those with something to hide. Why? Because being accused of a crime and arrested is a very serious matter that in and of itself can ruin lives, or at least irrevocably alter them. Sometimes this power is abused and brought to bear against innocents as a means of intimidation or trying to coerce cooperation in a different matter. Other times it is mere incompetence. Whatever the reason, it must be brought to bear judiciously and with checks and balances to make sure people are reasonably believed to be guilty and warrant the invasion of privacy.
