Image via Wikimedia Commons

If libertarians are right about any large politico-philosophical issue, it is that more bureaucracy hardly ever helps, especially over time. And so it’s likely to be when President Obama appoints a public privacy advocate, as the Los Angeles Times reported today.

How will this privacy ombudsman remain independent in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) hearings, when the court’s judges were supposed to essentially fill the exact same role in the first place? Who the hell knows. It seems quite a bit like government PR that won’t have any real, substantive privacy impact in the short or long term. 

The only way the position could come close to working is if some distinguished privacy activist with no cozy government or tech company ties were appointed to the post. It won’t work if the advocate is a career bureaucrat or tech evangelist for companies that live off of data mining dollars. That means no ex-Google, Facebook, Microsoft, or Apple executives, and certainly no ex-NSA or other intelligence professionals. There are plenty of folks in and around the fringes of the tech world that would do a marvelous job in critiquing surveillance measures and ensuring privacy. 

If Obama wants a real public advocate in FISC hearings, why not give Edward Snowden a call?

Look back to the late Roman republic for a moment. The Tribune of the People system was developed to give the people an advocate against aristocratic, Senatorial control of public life. For a time, it worked. But when tribunes like the brothers Gracchi wielded too much populist power, they ran into the merciless anvil of the state. Eventually, the tribunes became vehicles for manipulation, rarely discharging any of their original duties. Obama knows how such populist maneuvers can placate the masses, so isn’t it rather foolish to buy into his designs?

Is it fair to compare Obama’s public advocate to Roman history? Perhaps not, but there is ample evidence of citizen protection bureaucrats and public advocates being nearly worthless. The New York City public advocate position, for instance, has been under fire for years. Look at the Environmental Protection Agency’s timidity in going after fracking during an election year, as detailed in the Gasland documentaries. The Justice Department failed to put subprime mortgage and credit default swap criminals in prison out of some self-preservational move to appease Wall Street. And what became of the privacy protections set up as a buffer against the Patriot Act’s surveillance powers? Clearly, they didn’t work. 

If we reject Obama’s move, where does this leave us? Well, the best outcome is a legislative one. Ron Wyden’s Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act bill is the better option. On the other hand, the Supreme Court deciding the matter is even worse than Obama’s public advocate move.

But, can there be any real hope with Obama on surveillance and privacy, or just some more of the same? I wouldn’t bet on the former. If Obama wants a real public advocate in FISC hearings, why not give Edward Snowden a call? Yes, he’s ex-NSA, but who has been a better critic of surveillance and advocate for privacy?