We are not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files. The collection of taxes, the distribution of welfare and social security benefits, the supervision of public health, the direction of our Armed Forces, and the enforcement of the criminal laws all require the orderly preservation of great quantities of information, much of which is personal in character and potentially embarrassing or harmful if disclosed. The right to collect and use such data for public purposes is typically accompanied by a concomitant statutory or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures ... in some circumstances, that duty arguably has its roots in the Constitution.
-- Whalen v. Roe (1976)
A person in Patel's book noted that it's useful to have some sort of anchor while having soaring wings -- in this context, some basic beliefs (Catholicism) while being broadly open minded about out traditions (Eastern religions). Reminds also of one of my favorite episode of the old MTV show Daria (the brainy chick from Beavis and Butthead) involving her writing a story. She was having trouble and her English teacher, here giving a chance to have insight though often being a bit of an nudge, suggested a certain plot -- sometimes, restrictions can be helpful.
A bit of order is required to prevent liberty from being license. I'm with that. The well-rounded person is supposed to be read in many traditions and not limiting oneself to any one of them. But, this asks a lot of someone. It is something like the idea you can only remember seven bits of information or something, explaining why telephone numbers are that length. Or, something like that. Thus, it is useful to use something to ground yourself. A certain tradition, which is best one flexible enough to breath a lot of life into it, and bring in a lot of stuff. This works as much with faith texts and constitutions. It also works with source material -- a few good sources can be more informative in some ways than a diverse number that overwhelms you, resulting in less net information.
This is just a bit of personal philosophy, which is part of the reason I find it useful to cite Supreme Court opinions -- they can be seen as tips of the iceberg, and a way to introduce broader contexts. I can cite any number of things as well; after all, I like citing concurring opinions or dissents sometimes too. But, they serve as a comfortable means to examine certain subjects, while realizing they only take us so far. Similarly, I like when certain events or news items can be used to examine broader issues, and not be seen as singular freestanding items. Once you read enough things, this is fairly easy to do, even factoring in overinclusive bias.
Consider how the unauthorized access of candidate records has led some (has our quota of references to recent Glenn Greenwald columns been passed yet today? "what he said" would save time) to point out to the dangers of the national surveillance state. I have a book of essays from the 1960s that already was concerned about the collection of information (both public and private) and how it could be abused. Surely, when Justice Brennan (here concurring) voiced such a concern in the mid-1970s, it was not shocking ... but, and fill in your own desired source, the lesson still has to be reinforced, like a quick review covered in an upper level class:
The central storage and easy accessibility of computerized data vastly increase the potential for abuse of that information, and I am not prepared to say that future developments will not demonstrate the necessity of some curb on such technology.
TPM has a lot of useful reporting on this issue, including reporting a contractor involved.* I'm not sure how much that aspect of the story matters -- someone told me about her job as a telephone operator back in the days where you had a big switchboard and you could easily listen in on calls and she couldn't help herself. This nosiness, and apparently in some fashion it might have been involved here, is universal, and people directly on the government payroll will take part just as indirect ones when the work is contracted out. I was tempted to say "low level" employee, but that is probably at least somewhat unfair -- that is not the only ones who peek for any number of reasons.
And, maybe that is nothing to do with it here, though it might help fill in the details of what really happened (following the money, see who controls the companies, see if there are any other complaints of privacy violation, or is this a "quirky" thing, etc. ... blogs help do such things). Still, to the degree contractors are improperly regulated or in some other fashion bring troubles that might not be as strong when the government doesn't contract the work out, this story points to that as well. Likewise, it underlines the importance of regulating them, especially since the most you subcontract something, the less it has a tendency of being properly scrutinize by those who ultimately control things.
As my aside above suggested, this might ultimately be a small thing, but it does matter.
---
* Cute trivia tidbit apropos of this blog entry -- one outfit involved is "Stanley Inc.," which calls to mind an important privacy ruling, Stanley v. Georgia.