By Dray Breezy
What exactly is government’s role in our society? Was government created to serve the needs of the people or to regulate the needs of the people? In today’s society it seems that the social contract that we’ve made with government has been extorted, and not in our favor. Government was designed to protect us, providing us with inclusive social services and we in return gave them our trust and… money. However where does the line for government’s privileges stop?
Matthew Weaver
While it seems that the answer to this question is rooted in one’s personal ethics, in the case of Matthew Weaver one must ask if government has exceeded the purview of its authority. In March 2012, Weaver was running for student government California State University and in order to win he attached key loggers to various student computers and used the devices to log personal information such as usernames and passwords.(FBI 1) He used this information to rig the online voting system, casting upwards of 600 votes using the stolen information. (FBI) He was discovered when the network administrators noticed an unusual amount of activity stemming from a single computer. The Cal State police were called and apprehended Weaver, still casting votes.
Under initial investigation there is no doubt what Weaver did was unethical. However after pleading guilty to identity fraud, wire theft, and unauthorized use of a computer Weaver was sentenced to a year in the state penitentiary. (FBI) Does his punishment fit the crime? If establishing that Weaver’s crime is unethical and illegal, in understanding our representative democracy, if these activities were conducted by the government they would also be unethical and illegal.
Nicodemo Scarfo Jr.
In the Nicodemo Scarfo Jr case, the U.S government convicted Scarfo with evidence obtained in the exact same way as Weaver. The FBI obtained a secret warrant against Scarfo, broke into his office, attached the keylogger to his computer which they used to break through his encrypted files and obtain evidence that would be used against him (Perreting 1). When comparing the Weaver and Scarfo cases, the individual’s (weaver) actions were deemed unethical and illegal yet the government’s same action was unchecked and praised. The point could be made that the government’s actions were done for the greater good while Weaver’s was for personal gain. Yet how don’t we know that Weaver only cheated because he knew that he was the best for the job and knew that he would be the strongest asset to his school? I will call this the Bill Gates complex While this is a hypothetical and most likely not the case, the conflicting issue with these two cases highlights a startling hypothesis about the individual’s relationship to government. While the founding fathers created a democracy that would be by the people for the people, through a hijacking of government from reactionary and extreme figures government’s role has expanded to the point of infringing on our rights as individuals and citizens and deeming it acceptable as long as it is for the common good.
Social Contract
In understanding our basic social contract with government, the deal is quite clear, we give up some of our freedoms and privacy, and in return the government keeps the peace. However the undertone of that contract provided that government would also follow the same rules and ethics as the laws they enforce. In the Scarfo case the government used secret surveillance in the form of a keylogger so that they would have sufficient evidence to charge Scarfo with a crime. In Weaver’s case, he uses the same tactic as the government yet he was punished. Legally with the exception of murder, motive means very little, all that matters is the crime. Evaluating these two cases, the crime was the same and that was obtaining private information through any means possible. While this crime is unethical, Matthew Weaver was only one person and didn’t use the keyloggers with malicious intent. I’m sure we can all agree that the government has much more power than Weaver and in allowing these cases to stand U.S citizens are setting a precedent. This precedent is that government can be made allowances regarding illegality that we as citizens do not share. With the destruction of unions, rise of the 1 percent, NSA surveillance, and upcoming Magic lantern program, one must feel as though the scales are tipping. Are all of these allowances for the greater good of the individual or feeding the power complex of the machine we call government?