One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the loss of privacy protections. They have eroded under government attacks on our right to privacy, and they have eroded from corporate attacks on our privacy. Since one of the major customers of the corporate personal data collectors is the U.S. government, the two are intimately part of the same problem. The extensions of "surveillance" and "personal data collection" have reached alarming proportions. I fear that this creeping surveillance society will just be accepted as a "cost of doing business" or as a necessary loss in the cause of "national security." In either case, with our privacy goes our freedom, and I do not accept the validity of either justification.

There is all kinds of pressure to have RFID (an identification system with biometric data). The vehicles for utilizing such a personalized identity come in many forms and from many quarters. There are suggestions for a national ID card, attached to passports, integrated into state driver's licenses and identification cards, as well as implantable RFID in hospital patients. The possibilities seem to be endless.

It is coming, and whoever's interests are being served by this have clout. The "war appropriations" bill had the Real ID Act tagged onto it. The push has the full support of the Bush administration ("National ID Card Closer to Reality", reads the headline in a Scripps Howard News Service story).

It is no surprise that the Bush administration supports Real ID, data collection, and massive public surveillance. From the day they entered the White House they have done everything they can to obscure what is happening in government, and make transparent the lives of the population. This is just the reverse of what was intended by the framers of the Constitution. They knew full well that you cannot have a democracy if the people could not see what the government was doing - and hold that government to account.

"A bill endorsed by the Bush administration that would set rules for states that issue driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants could come to a vote in the House Thursday and appears well on its way to becoming law. Under a compromise between House and Senate negotiators, states would be limited to providing special permits that identify the holder as an illegal alien. Anyone possessing the license would not be permitted to proffer it as identification to board an airplane or enter a federal building.

Proponents assert the change is necessary to further bolster U.S. security while addressing what they view as a growing crisis in illegal immigration.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the House Judiciary Committee chairman and the measure's prime sponsor, said it will, if passed, protect U.S. citizens from terrorists, drug smugglers, alien gangs and violent criminals."

And what do we pay for creating a system that tracks everyone? Does it make us safer? Somehow I doubt it, but it does make our daily lives much more transparent - and open to whatever "threat assessment" software which will be run over the massively growing databases.

However, the issue of privacy is not simply one of corporate and government data collectors. There is a growing use of visual surveillance data that is being implemented. An extensive article on Wired by Noah Shachtman ("Spycam Force") discusses the implementation of a "a point-and-click surveillance network tied to a citywide crime-fighting database."

"A pilot network of 30 cameras keeps watch over the West Side, capturing images that have been used in more than 200 investigations. It's the first step on the way to a 2,250-camera system. And the electronic eyes are merely the most visible part of a strategy to completely remake police work in Chicago. A massive set of databases now collects and collates the minutiae of law enforcement - everything from mug shots to chains of evidence. Installed in patrol cars, it turns every PC in every station house into a node on a crime-fighting network. At headquarters, superintendents and commanders use it to pore over patterns of criminal behavior, figuring out how to deploy swarms of cops."

The article gives a "birds eye view" of Chicago's new system as the author "rode along" to see it in action. This is no critique of the concerns or threats that such a system might pose. He raises no question about either the appropriateness or the potential for misuse of such a system and its data. In essentially applauding the system, Shachtman's article becomes a path-smoother for public acceptance of massive video surveillance networks. It also gives the thoughtful reader an excellent idea of what is in our near future.

This wide expansion of surveillance and tracking systems is not confined to the United States. It is being promoted and implemented by a variety of "free nations" joined together in the "broader" "war on terrorism." Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian is more to the point ("Warning on spread of state surveillance").

Knowledge is power, and those who control the knowledge control the power. That is a truism and is operating at multiple levels in our current environment. In the case of data collection, there is (even under the most trusting of circumstances) concerns about intimidation. Do you ever consider how what you are doing might be interpreted? What were you doing at the corner of 8th and Main at 5 AM? Why did you drive off route?

The possibilities for interpretation of our daily lives are endless. It concerns me that there is not more outcry and concern, but I think most are being lulled into acceptance. All the new cars have recording devices in them, and many have locating devices for Global Positioning Systems. GPS is integrated into most new cell phones. Your identity and location follows you everywhere on the internet. Every purchase with plastic (bank cards, credit cards, and PayPal) are saved - what are you buying, when are you buying it, and who are you buying it from? Massive data profiles can be generated not just of the patterns of your purchases but the routines and habits of your life (where you go when).

When the threats are discussed, it is the threat of identity theft that is pushed. Certainly a concern, but is that really the biggest threat of such data collection? Is the constant shouting about identity theft simply to keep us from looking at these other issues? Not only that, but the threat of identity theft is being used to push for the implementation of Real ID systems. That should raise suspicions. Further, the procedures being put in place to stop identity theft further concentrate the power of data collection to "legitimate" collectors - corporations and the government.

I have been the "victim" of identity theft, so I know what a mess it can be. Identity theft is an issue, but it is not the issue that I think poses the largest overall threat. Instead, the fears of identity theft are fanned while the use of massive data collection is put on the pedestal of "security" - both from "crime" and from "terrorism." Isn't the loss of our constitutional protections of privacy a crime with perhaps more sweeping consequences than identity theft? I think it is.

(An aside: The state of Oregon was selling the driver's license database on CD to all comers for $14.95. They have now restricted that data.)

S. Rowan Wolf is a Portland Community College sociologist, and founder and editor of Uncommon Thought Journal.