Capitol Confidential / Big Government:
The Heat is On: Congressman's Office Says Constituent Calls Are ‘Harassment’  —  Yesterday, I decided to call Rep. John Garamendi's (CA-10) office in Washington, D.C. He's my representative and I wanted to voice my opposition to the Senate Health Care Bill.  I spoke with a female staffer …

With a possibile vote to finalize passage of health care reform approaching, Fox News has thrown everything but the kitchen sink to rally opposition, with guest host Laura Ingraham proclaiming, "Let's kill the bill." For example, Fox News personalities have portrayed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as unreliable, falsely claimed that a 2006 earthquake did not occur and attacked an 11-year-old and his family that support reform.

Ingraham on hosting for Fox News: "Let's kill the bill!" Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham posted the following message on her Twitter account: "I'll be hosting the O'Reilly Factor on Friday, 8pm eastern. Let's kill the bill!"

From Ingraham's March 19 post on her Twitter account:

Beck encourages viewers to hold candlelight vigil against health care reform. Glenn Beck asserted: "It is time that you have a candlelight vigil. You peacefully assemble in front of your Congressman's local doors. You go to his office locally, not to Washington. You gather your friends and you stand there, you sleep there. You make sure the press covers a peaceful assembly of people saying, 'We will remember your name 'til the end of time, sir.'" [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 3/15/10]

The Fox Nation highlights "call to arms" in opposition to health care reform. On March 18, The Fox Nation published a headline, "Alert: Jon Voight's Call to Arms - Come to D.C. Sat. to Oppose Obamacare."

Fox & Friends channels GOP on "facts that people need to know" about health care reform. Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy announced: "So the Republicans have put out some facts that people need to know about this." Fox News then displayed images under the heading, "GOP: What you need to know. Facts on the Dem health bill." Doocy continued: "For instance, they say, what they're not talking about is the fact that there's going to be a new Medicare tax on capital gains." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 3/19/10]

Cavuto promotes weekend coverage tilted toward conservatives. Your World host Neal Cavuto has promoted his upcoming "Health Care Showdown: What's really up Doc?" coverage, which will air on Saturday, March 20. Cavuto will host conservative radio host Mark Levin, Rep. Jason Altimire (D-PA), Dom Imus, and Mike Huckabee. Cavuto also promoted Friday's Your World guests, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), conservative radio host and columnist Jeri Thompson, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), and Republican candidate for California governor Carly Fiorina.

Fox hosts Gene Simmons to bash health care and promote his insurance company. During Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly hosted K.I.S.S. front man Gene Simmons to discuss health care. During his appearance, Simmons called health care reform "horrific" and promoted his life insurance company.

Fox falsely attributes doctor survey to New England Journal of Medicine. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Brian Kilmeade, Sean Hannity and Marc Siegel all pushed the false claim that a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) survey found that 46 percent of primary care physicians would consider leaving their profession if health care reform legislation passes. In fact, NEJM says they didn't publish or conduct the 3-month-old email "survey," which was actually conducted by The Medicus Firm and published in an employment newsletter.  

Fox News erases 2006 Hawaii earthquake to attack Obama. Responding to President Obama's statement during a Fox News interview that Hawaii "went through an earthquake" and could benefit from a health care reform provision that would help Louisiana cope with Medicaid shortfalls resulting from Hurricane Katrina, Doocy asked, "What Hawaiian earthquake?" In fact, as Fox News itself reported at the time, President Bush declared a "major disaster" after Hawaii was hit by a magnitude 6.7 earthquake in October 2006. [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 3/18/10]

Beck attacks family of 11-year-old who spoke about his mother's death at health care event. Following 11-year-old Marcelas Owens' appearance at a health care reform event to speak about his mother, who reportedly died after losing her health insurance, Beck asked, "Where was grandma" when Marcelas' mother was sick and attacked her work with the organization Washington Community Action Network, saying the group was "all about economic, racial, gender, and social justice for all," which he called, "pesky phrases." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 3/15/10]

Fox calls CBO score untrustworthy. After the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the health care reform reconciliation package would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years, Fox News -- led by Beck, Hannity, Doocy, Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer and The Fox Nation -- attempted to portray the nonpartisan CBO as untrustworthy and unreliable. By contrast, after the CBO gave a "favorable" score to the GOP health care plan, Fox praised the office as "nonpartisan" and advanced false GOP claims about the CBO's findings.

Fox News suggests Dems were bought off to support health care reform. Dick Morris suggested that Obama "illegal[ly]" nominated Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) brother Scott "to a judgeship with an implicit quid pro quo." Rep. Matheson's office and the White House have called the smear "ridiculous" and "absurd," former Bush-appointed judge Michael McConnell definitely debunked the smear and conservatives have stated that Scott Matheson is "plenty qualified for the job." Likewise, following Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) appearance on Fox & Friends to discuss his decision to support the bill, Fox News displayed a graphic stating: "What was Kucinich promised? Congressman changed vote from no to yes."

Fox anchors falsely attack House rule as undemocratic. Fox News anchors, during their self-described daytime "news hours," repeatedly forwarded the false suggestion that by using a legislative procedure known as the "self-executing rule" to finalize health care reform in the House, Democrats would be passing health care reform "without actually voting for it." In fact, passing legislation by using the procedure would require a majority vote. Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich criticized the rule as "incredible" and "passing bills without voting on them," despite the fact that the Republican Party "set new records" for its use of the self-executing rule in the years following Gingrich's ascension as Speaker.  

Fox repeatedly inaccurately reported on abortion funding. Doocy, Hemmer, Kilmeade, Bill O'Reilly, Carl Cameron, Dana Perino and Greta Van Sustren pushed the debunked claim that the Senate health care reform bill contains language that would allow federal funding for abortion beyond what is currently allowed under federal law. In fact, the Senate bill -- which will be considered by the House -- prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services restricted by current federal law.

Hemmer perpetuates debunked health care myth: "Could people be going to jail for not owning health insurance?" Hemmer revived the debunked myth that not buying health insurance "could lead to prison" and asked: "Could people be going to jail for not owning health insurance?" In fact, the penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time, and willful failure to pay taxes of any sort can result in civil or criminal penalties.

Perino misleads on Medicare tax impact on small businesses. Guest hosting on Fox & Friends, Perino trumpeted the myth that a Medicare investment tax on those making more than $200,000 would affect most small business owners. In fact, fewer than 1.3 percent of small business owners would be affected by the tax.

Indrajit Samarajiva at Indi.ca reacts to the recent news that the Sri Lankan opposition alliance is abandoning their candidate Mr. Sarath Fonseka, because he is in jail now.

In anticipation of the upcoming immigration marches, Media Matters for America has compiled a review of the hateful and outrageous right-wing rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate in 2006.

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant-rights marchers, immigrants are seeking to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant rights marchers are "racis[t]"

Right-wing rhetoric: Pro-immigration marchers should be arrested or deported

Right-wing rhetoric: Stoking fears over displays of the Mexican flag

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration is an "invasion"

Right-wing rhetoric: U.S., Mexico are in a state of "war"

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrants are fundamentally altering American culture or way of life

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration reform is part of plot to institute "North American Union"

Other hate speech and outrageous rhetoric

"Reconquista" is a discredited smear used by the right to generate fear of Latino immigrants. During the 2006 immigration debate, right-wing media repeatedly advanced the discredited smear that Mexican-Americans and Mexican citizens -- particularly "illegal aliens" -- are plotting to take over the U.S. Southwest for Mexico.

Dobbs referred to potential "army" of "illegal alien" "invaders" taking over Southwest. During an April 2006 broadcast of his now-defunct CNN show, Lou Dobbs introduced a report by stating: "There are some Mexican citizens and some Mexican-Americans who want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwestern United States given over to Mexico. These groups call it the reconquista, Spanish for reconquest. And they view the millions of Mexican illegal aliens in particular entering the United States as potentially an army of invaders to achieve that takeover." Correspondent Christine Romans reported, "Long downplayed as a theory of the radical ethnic fringe, the la reconquista, the reconquest, the reclamation, the return, it's resonating with some on the streets," and went on to say: "A lot of open borders groups disavow it completely. But the growing street protests in favor of illegal immigration, Lou, are increasingly taking on the tone of that very radicalism." [CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, 4/31/06]

CNN reporter referenced "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour," used "Aztlan" graphic sourced to hate group. Lou Dobbs Tonight correspondent Casey Wian characterized then-Mexican President Vicente Fox's trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, as a "Mexican military incursion" and claimed that "[y]ou could call" Fox's trip to the United States "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour." During Wian's report, CNN featured a graphic of "Aztlan" that was sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- an organization whose "Statement of Principles" reads: "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 5/23/06]

Malkin: "[T]he vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians" embrace "the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin declared that protesters in Los Angeles were "people who believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico, that we don't have a right to enforce our borders, and who do nothing more than try to sabotage our sovereignty." Malkin later added that "the kind of quote-unquote 'pride' that a lot of these illegal alien activists are touting now goes much further than just being proud about one's heritage and one's roots. The idea, the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista, are embraced by the vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians." [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 3/30/06]

Wash. Times editorial: Protesters approve of "reconquista" agenda. A Washington Times editorial accused Latinos who protested against a proposal to restrict immigration of either supporting or having given "tacit approval" to the "reconquista" agenda of "Hispanic radicals," which the editorial said was the "reconquering of Mexican land lost during the Mexican-American war." [The Washington Times, 3/30/06]

Fox's Gibson suspicious that Latino advocacy groups are set on "retaking old Mexico territories ... by pure birth rate." While saying that he was citing an internal email from the National Council of La Raza, John Gibson claimed on his Fox News show that he was suspicious that advocacy groups like the NCLR favor "the so-called reconquista," which Gibson described as the "retaking of old Mexico territories, which are now part of the United States, by pure birth rate." Gibson also asserted that the NCLR "is a group dedicated to the betterment of the race," adding, "good, but try being American while you are at it, guys." [Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, 4/3/06]

O'Reilly: Purported immigrant protest "organizers" have hidden "hardcore militant agenda" to take back American Southwest. On his radio show, O'Reilly said that the "organizers" of immigrant rallies have a "hardcore militant agenda of 'You stole our land, you bad gringos.' " O'Reilly said that the "slogan" of the demonstrations' organizers was "[W]e didn't cross the border, the border crossed us," and that this meant that the organizers believed that Americans "stole [their] land." The organizers' hidden "agenda underneath," said O'Reilly, was that "now, we're going to take it back by massive, massive migration into the Southwest." [Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 5/1/06]

Buchanan: "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents" want to "take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." In his book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, published in August 2006, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan wrote: "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents have made clear their intent to take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." He also wrote that the United States must keep "Americans of European descent" from becoming the "minority" in order to "survive[]." [State of Emergency (Thomas Dunne Books)]

Malkin: "[W]e saw ... that supposed fringe" that favors reconquista "come out into the mainstream." O'Reilly said to Malkin, "So I know that there's an undercurrent of militancy that says, 'Hey, this is our territory. You stole it from us in the Mexican-American War. We're going to take it back now by illegal immigration.' But I think that's a fringe, nutty group, not the mass of millions that we have." Malkin replied: "Well, I guess I disagree with you there, Bill, because I mean, we saw in April and May of this year [2006] that supposed fringe come out into the mainstream. And it wasn't just a dozen folks who are ensconced in the ivory tower who believe that the Southwest is Aztlan and it belongs to them." O'Reilly later asked her: "You think that this massive immigration to the United States, 15 million strong, is a part of a plan to bring back territory to Mexico?" Malkin responded: "Well, I take the Mexican government at its word when it says that is exactly its plan." [The O'Reilly Factor, 8/23/06]

Malkin: "[M]ilitant racism from another protected minority group was on full display" from "Latino supremacists." In her syndicated column, Malkin wrote of immigration rallies, "Well, this weekend, militant racism from another protected minority group was on full display. But you wouldn't know it from press accounts that whitewashed or buried the protesters' virulent anti-American hatred." Malkin also wrote: "Apologists are quick to argue that Latino supremacists are just a small fringe faction of the pro-illegal immigration movement (never mind that their ranks include former and current Hispanic politicians from L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to former California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante)." [Creators Syndicate column, 3/29/06]

Savage: "[B]rown supremacists" are "behind these protests." On his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said: "So, it seems to me that there's a certain group of immigrants that's not very happy and they're all Hispanic. I don't see any other racial group out there in the streets, do you? Now, that's very interesting. I'm not allowed to raise the issue or the specter of brown supremacists behind these protests. Don't tell me this is all about compassion for immigrants, because it is not at all only about compassion for immigrants. They are trying to provoke the takeover of the United States of America." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 4/11/06]

Fox's Asman wondered whether marches are a perfect chance to "round up these lawbreakers and ship them out." Guest-hosting Fox News' Your World, David Asman discussed nationwide protests of immigration reform and wondered: "With so many illegals hitting the streets, is this the perfect time to round up these lawbreakers and ship them out?" As Asman spoke, the on-screen text read: "Round 'Em Up?" Later, the text read: "Perfect Chance to Arrest Illegal Immigrants?" [Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/10/06]

Smerconish: "[L]aw enforcement ought to step in" at immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" undocumented immigrants. Guest-hosting MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish suggested that "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" undocumented immigrants. Smerconish wondered why there was "zero discussion" of "gathering them up" at the demonstrations, when "[a]ll I keep hearing is how would we ever find them?" [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 4/10/06]

Doocy suggested "round[ing] them up right then, when they're saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.' " On Fox & Friends, syndicated radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller announced that he was "having a big rally here in Chicago" for a "group" that he said was "pro-illegal murder and illegal car thieves." Muller added: "We're just getting together, and we're going to be out on the street. We're for illegal murder and illegal car thievery. So, we just like illegal stuff." Muller added: "I just like illegal murder and illegal car thieves. So, you know, it's illegal, but -- and, in fact, all the people who have done it are going to be out there on the street, and hopefully, none of the cops will come arrest us." Co-host Steve Doocy then said: "Yeah, you wouldn't want to round them up right then, when they're saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.' " [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 4/3/06]

Media figures attacked Mexican-flag wavers, but not those waving Irish, Italian, or Israeli flags. Following immigration rallies, media figures criticized demonstrators for carrying Mexican flags, but the same media figures had not complained about people waving other nations' flags, such as Irish flags at St. Patrick's Day events, Italian flags at Columbus Day events, or Israeli flags at Israel Day events. Some commentators even dismissed the comparison. For instance, National Review editor Rich Lowry called the Mexican-flag waving "more ominous" than the St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day displays.

Savage: "[B]urn the Mexican flag!" On his radio show, Savage urged his listeners to "burn the Mexican flag" in opposition to undocumented immigrants, telling them to "[b]urn a Mexican flag for America, burn a Mexican flag for those who died that you should have a nationality and a sovereignty, go out in the street and show you're a man, burn 10 Mexican flags, if I could recommend it. Put one in the window upside down and tell them to go back where they came from! And if that's a little to xenophobic for you, ask yourself why the xenophobes from Mexico wave their flag in your country." [The Savage Nation, 3/27/06]

Fox News: Waving Mexican flag shows "antagonistic edge," waving U.S. flag "just a cover" and "a ploy to win America's support." Asman cited demonstrators' use of Mexican flags as evidence of "an antagonistic edge" and suggested that the use of U.S. flags and signs written in English at pro-immigration demonstrations was "just a cover" by the demonstrators to conceal their "real intention, which is to keep things as normal among illegal immigrants in the country." Similarly, Neil Cavuto suggested that the pro-immigration demonstrators' U.S. flags were "just a prop" and "just a ploy to win America's support." [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/10/06; 4/11/06]

Buchanan: Illegal immigration is "an invasion of the United States of America" and "[t]he whole world is coming." On MSNBC's Hardball, Buchanan claimed that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the United States is "not immigration" but "an invasion of the United States of America" that is "coming not only from Mexico," but "from the whole world." He reiterated: "The whole world is coming." [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 5/15/06]

Savage: "This is an invasion by any other name." Savage said, "We, the people, are being displaced by the people of Mexico. This is an invasion by any other name. Everybody with a brain understands that. Everybody who understands reality understands we are being pushed out of our own country." [The Savage Nation, 3/27/06]

Buchanan: "This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." In State of Emergency, Buchanan wrote of immigration: "This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." He also wrote: "We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted." [State of Emergency]

Tancredo: [W]e are at war with Mexico, in a way." On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, WorldNetDaily.com columnist Tom Tancredo -- then a Republican congressman from Colorado -- said, "[I]n a way, we are at war with Mexico, in a way. I'll say it in this way: Mexico is aiding and abetting an invasion of this country. They are part of the problem. They are doing what they are -- in fact, they are creating situations along that border using their own military to protect drug trafficking into the United States, pushing their own people into the United States for a variety of reasons. It is an invasion. It is an act of aggression." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06, transcript from the Nexis database]

Beck sidekick Gray: "[W]e are in a war with Mexico right now." Pat Gray, who is now a co-host of Glenn Beck's radio show, appeared on Beck's then-CNN Headline News show and claimed that "we are in a war with Mexico right now." After Beck agreed that "we better wake up soon," Gray responded: "[O]r we're going to wake up dead." [CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, 9/25/06]

O'Reilly claimed to have exposed the "hidden agenda" behind the immigrant rights movement: "the browning of America." O'Reilly claimed that during his Fox News show, guest Charles Barron, a New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate. O'Reilly told his radio listeners: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." But in the interview, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 4/12/06]

Beck: "[I]llegal immigrants are attacking our culture, and our way of life." On his then-CNN Headline News show, Beck said, "[A]t the very least, illegal immigrants are attacking our culture, and our way of life. They are not melting into our melting pot -- they're here for the cash." He later said, "I mean, we've got all these threats coming in from overseas, but the simplest way is for us to lose the culture of the West is just to do nothing and let illegal immigrants not melt in and take the culture away from us." [Glenn Beck, 8/24/06]

Buchanan: "They're not welcome to come here and insult the symbols of our country, and that's what these outsiders have done." On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said that a Spanish-language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is "a provocation and an insult" and that immigrants are "not welcome to come here and insult the symbols of our country, and that's what these outsiders have done." Buchanan then said that the Spanish recording is "a good thing in this sense: The American people are awakening to the character of these people." [Scarborough Country, 5/1/06]

Matthews: Republicans "have a right to fear" a "cultural change" that would result in their hometowns "becom[ing] overwhelmingly Mexican." On Hardball, Matthews claimed that House Republicans who had passed a bill that would apparently have criminalized undocumented immigrants, their employers, and those who provide aid to them "have a right to fear" a "cultural change" that would result in their home states and towns "becom[ing] overwhelmingly Mexican." Matthews was responding to a suggestion by guest Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, that "the Republicans who passed the House bill" are "afraid" that the United States will soon have "a majority Latino population." Matthews later said, "It's not my point view necessarily," before suggesting that "90 percent of this country" agrees with the "viewpoint" that "I didn't move to Mexico; Mexico moved to me, and I'm complaining about it." [Hardball with Chris Matthews, 3/30/06]

O'Reilly: "[Y]ou're on a nice block ... and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med." On his radio show, O'Reilly said:

You've got the folks who don't have emotion invested in it, other than the farmers down and the ranchers down on the border are going -- as the lady just called up, [caller] -- say, look, I got garbage in my -- on my ranch every day. I mean, I'm under siege. They have emotion invested in it. But those of us up here don't.

Unless you live in a town, like Farmingville, Long Island -- we went over this before -- where you bought a house, you spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars, you're on a nice block, your kids are happy, and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med. And this happens all over the country. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 3/27/06]

Buchanan: "I think what's coming is the complete balkanization of America." On Hardball, Buchanan said, "I think what's coming is the complete balkanization of America, and I'm afraid it's going to be by ethnicity and culture, and language, and every other way. ... And so, then, it's not like the country you and I grew up in, Chris, whereby we were monocultural. We were monocultural." [Hardball, 6/5/06]

O'Reilly wondered whether children of Mexican immigrants in U.S. "have any kind of traditional value system" or are "setting up Acapulco North." On his radio show, O'Reilly wondered whether children of legal and undocumented immigrants from Mexico who are attending school in the United States "have any kind of traditional value system at all, vis-à-vis what America used to be," or whether they are "taking their Mexican values, because most of them are Mexicans, and, you know, basically setting up Acapulco North." [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 8/15/06]

Buchanan: "You're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede." On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said: "[Y]ou cannot absorb 40 to 60 million more people. You're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede from this country." [Scarborough Country, 6/5/06]

Buchanan: Immigration will turn U.S. into "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." On CNN's The Situation Room, Buchanan warned that "[w]e'll become a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." He continued: "The problem with the immigration, basically -- let's take Mexico -- is these folks are breaking the law, first. Secondly, they're coming in huge numbers, like no other group before. Third, they're from a contiguous nation. Fourth, 58 percent of Mexicans believe the Southwest belongs to them. Fifth, the Mexican government is pushing them in here, and it's got a political and ideological agenda." [CNN's The Situation Room, 8/28/06]

"North American Union" is an absurd conspiracy theory. Right-wing media, including Dobbs, have obsessively warned that elements in the U.S. government are secretly plotting to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada in a "North American Union" similar to the European Union. During the June 21, 2006, edition of his CNN show, Dobbs stated that "the Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to create a North American union with Canada and Mexico" and later asked: "Do you think, our question is, maybe somebody should take a vote if we're going to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States as the leaders of the three countries are attempting to do with the security and prosperity partnership? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com." Dobbs' CNN colleague Suzanne Malveaux later described the North American Union rhetoric as "conspiracy theor[y]." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 6/21/06]

Corsi: "North American Union ... was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy." Jerome Corsi, co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, wrote in a column that "President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy. Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico." [HumanEvents.com, 5/19/06]

WND's Farah linked Bush guest-worker proposal to plan by "one-worlders" to merge U.S., Mexico, Canada. Appearing on a radio show, WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah claimed that the "one-worlders" of the Council on Foreign Relations have a plan to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada by 2010 and suggested that Bush's proposed guest-worker program is part of this plan. Farah said, "Sometimes, the conspiracies are right." [American Family Radio's Today's Issues, 4/4/06]

Buchanan: Vicente Fox's "ultimate goal" is making Mexico and U.S. "basically part of the North American Union." On Lou Dobbs Tonight, Buchanan said, "The government of Mexico is pushing its poor and unemployed into the United States to ease social pressure on itself. Secondly, they get $16 billion in remittances back to Mexico. Third, it is awoken to the idea that it can reannex the American southwest, which it used to hold, linguistically, culturally, ethnically and socially, not militarily by pushing all these people in there and creating a gigantic fifth column in America." Buchanan added: "The ultimate goal of Vicente Fox is the erasure of the border between the United States and Mexico. He has said as much and to make the two basically part of the North American Union in which Mexico will get ... a constant flow of cash from the wealthy USA and La Reconquista is the objective." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 9/5/06, Nexis transcript]

“Quand je signais mes mails avec mon identifiant et mon mot de passe, ce n’était pas seulement de la provocation : ma sécurité est basée sur le fait que je sauvegarde mes données, pas sur un secret qui risquerait – si je le croyais protégé – de m’être préjudiciable.”
– Laurent Chemla

Pionnier de l’internet et auteur des “Confessions d’un voleur“, livre incontournable (et téléchargeable gratuitement) pour qui veut comprendre les valeurs (et l’histoire) de l’internet tel qu’il s’est développé dans les années 90, Laurent Chemla a une conception somme toute particulière de la vie privée.

A l’instar de tous les professionnels de la sécurité informatique, il sait que la première chose à faire, pour se protéger, est de sauvegarder régulièrement ses données, sur un support externe, que c’est le meilleur moyen de résister, et survivre, à un plantage, un piratage, une saisie ou le crash d’un ordinateur : ce qui a -souvent- le plus de valeur, ce n’est pas le matériel, mais les données qui y sont stockées.

Les professionnels de la sécurité savent également qu’il se trouvera toujours quelqu’un de plus compétent qu’eux, disposant de plus de moyens ou de temps, et qu’aucun système n’est sécurisable à 100%. On sait, d’autre part, que la sécurité des logiciels libres -dont le code source est librement consultable- est a priori plus fiable que celle des logiciels propriétaires, dont le code est un “secret“.

D’une part, parce que personne ne peut vérifier que ne s’y trouve en fait une faille de sécurité, voire une porte dérobée ou un cheval de Troie. D’autre part, parce qu’on ne peut pas faire confiance à quelque chose de “secret” : un secret peut être découvert, extorqué, contourné, et somme toute préjudiciable, comme le résumait Laurent Chemla, “parce qu’alors je ferais confiance à ce mot de passe et que j’agirais donc comme s’il était impossible à craquer, ce qui serait toujours faux“.

A rebours de la sécurité par l’obscurité, qui postule que le système est d’autant plus sécurisé que l’attaquant ne connaît pas dans le détail le fonctionnement du système, le principe de Kerckhoffs prône ainsi, et a contrario, la transparence, au motif que seule la clé doit rester secrète, et que la serrure sera d’autant plus sécurisée que son mécanisme peut être vérifier, et valider, par les pairs.

S’inspirant des postures de John Brunner qui, dans Sur l’onde de choc, livre “pré-cyber-punk” publié en 1974, prophétisait que la liberté passerait par le fait que tout sur tout soit rendu public, et de Bill Thompson, éditorialiste à la BBC qui en appelle à un “nouveau Siècle des Lumières” basé sur la libre circulation et le partage des données, Laurent Chemla estime même que “le meilleur moyen de protéger l’individu, c’est que tout soit public” :

“Il faut en finir avec la notion de vie privée. Il faut en finir avec la notion d’information confidentielle ou secrète. L’information veut être libre, et elle le sera.”

D’une part, parce que cela permettrait de déborder ceux qui font profession de nous surveiller de torrents de données quasi impossible à endiguer, ce que l’on a vu, par exemple, avec les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, qui auraient peut-être pu être évités si seulement les services de renseignement américain avaient réussi à analyser correctement les données qui, pourtant, étaient à leur disposition.

Mais, et surtout, cela aurait également pour effet que “les surveillants seraient eux aussi surveillés, ce qui détruit tout le modèle économique des sociétés qui font leur beurre des données personnelles qu’elles “possèdent”. Tous les pouvoirs basés sur le secret ou la détention d’information confidentielle seraient réduits à néant. Mais est-ce si grave ? Et quels sont-ils, ces pouvoirs, en fait ?” :

“Aucun régime totalitaire ne survivrait dans une transparence totale. Pas de corruption possible, pas de secret défense, pas de mot de passe. Au final, seuls ceux qui voudront exercer un quelconque pouvoir (politique, médiatique…) seraient surveillés par tous.

Tout le monde saurait que je couche avec la femme du voisin ? La société n’a qu’à s’adapter à ce fait nouveau et au final ça n’intéresserait plus personne (à part le voisin) passé l’attrait de la nouveauté. Parce que ça ne servirait à rien de vouloir découvrir ce que ne cache pas son voisin.”

A contrario, Lawrence Lessig, fondateur du Centre pour l’internet et la société à l’école de droit de Stanford, et grand défenseur des libertés sur le Net, estime pour sa part que le rêve d’une société transparente est aussi celui d’une société totalitaire, et que la transparence fragilise plus la démocratie qu’elle ne la renforce :

“Comment pourrait-on être contre la transparence ? Ses vertus et son utilité publique semblent si évidentes. Pourtant, je m’inquiète de plus en plus d’une erreur au fondement même de cette bonté incontestée. Nous ne sommes pas suffisamment critiques sur où et comment la transparence fonctionne, ni sur les risques de confusion, voire pire, qu’elle entraîne.

Je crains que le succès inévitable de ce mouvement – s’il est mené seul, sans aucune sensibilité à la complexité de l’idée d’une disponibilité parfaite de l’information – ne finisse par inspirer, non des réformes, mais le dégoût. Le “mouvement de la transparence nue”, comme je l’appelle, n’inspire pas le changement. Il va tout simplement faire disparaître toute confiance dans notre système politique.”

Dans la philosophie des Lumières, “la liberté des uns s’arrête là où commence celle des autres“. Ce qui, reformulé positivement, peut également s’entendre comme “la liberté des uns commence là où elle confirme celle des autres“. Se pourrait-il que, de même, “la vie privée des uns commence là où elle confirme celle des autres” ?

Ainsi, si Jeff Jarvis a fait le choix de révéler son cancer de la prostate, estimant qu’il avait plus à y gagner qu’à y perdre, il n’en a pas moins mis des limites à l’exposition de sa vie privée, et il ne parle pas, par exemple, de sa sexualité : sa femme pourrait ne pas apprécier.

Si la vie privée se définit par le contrôle que l’on a sur ses données personnelles, et l’exposition (ou non) de son intimité, pour lui, il s’agit aussi, d’abord et avant tout, de ne pas non plus révéler d’informations attentatoires à la vie privée de quelqu’un d’autre.

Cette limite vaut non seulement pour ceux qui décident de rendre publique une partie de leur vie privée, mais également pour ceux qui en prennent connaissance. Ainsi, une chose est de mettre en ligne, pour ses “amis“, des photos de soi dans une posture qui pourrait potentiellement déplaire à sa maman, une autre est de se la voir reprocher par son employeur… Néanmoins, il y a fort à parier que cette situation tende à se banaliser.

A la toute récente conférence SXSW, la sociologue et ethnographe du numérique danah boyd rappelle ainsi que “ce n’est pas parce que quelque chose est “public” que l’on a pour autant envie que d’autres le rendent encore plus “public” :

“Il existe une grosse différence entre quelque chose qui peut être publiquement accessible et quelque chose qui fait l’objet d’une publicité. Faire de la publicité à quelque chose qui, certes public, n’était guère visible peut s’apparenter à une violation de la vie privée.

Il est facile de penser que “public” et “privé” sont deux choses binaires et bien séparées. Certaines estiment que tout ce qui n’est pas “public” est “privé”. Mais cette opposition ne suffit pas à comprendre ce que nous entendons par “vie privée”.

Lorsque l’on s’exprime dans un hall, ou un bar, on s’exprime en public, mais on attend des autres personnes présentes qu’elles ne s’immiscent pas dans la conversation. Dès lors, on peut parler, en privé, dans un espace public.

Les murs ont peut-être des oreilles, mais c’est tout de même très rare. A contrario, dans les espaces et salons virtuels, les murs ont toujours des oreilles, mais également des micros. Et ce que l’on y a partagé, raconté, est indexé, archivé, répliqué, et peut même parfois être retrouvé via des moteurs de recherche…”

danah boyd prend également grand soin de rappeler que tout le monde n’a pas forcément, ni vocation, ni intérêt, ni facilité particulière, à aborder sereinement le fait de devenir une personnalité publique : certains ne savent pas forcément s’exprimer facilement en public, d’autres préfèrent rester cachées ou anonymes (de peur de leur ex-mari, agresseur, etc.).

D’autres, enfin, du fait même de leur statut de personnalité publique “IRL” (in real life), peuvent paradoxalement être incités à ne pas avoir de vie publique sur le Net, ou alors sous un autre nom. Quid, par exemple, des enseignants ? Peuvent-ils risquer d’évoquer sur le Net leur “vie privée“, croyances politiques ou religieuses, vacances ? Quid de leurs blogs, MySpace, ou Facebook ? Jusqu’où peuvent-ils ne pas être “que” les professeurs de vos enfants ?

“D’autres nouveaux outils vont venir compliquer les frontières de ce qui est public et de ce qui est privé, de ce que nous avons à y perdre ou à y gagner, rappelle danah boyd. La vie privée, pas plus que la vie publique, n’est en passe de disparaître, mais la technologie va continuer à en brouiller les cartes :

“Le désir de vie privée n’a rien à voir avec le fait que nous aurions des choses à cacher, mais avec le fait que nous voulons garder le contrôle de nos données. Souvent, la vie privée n’a rien à voir avec le fait de se cacher, mais, au contraire, de créer des espaces où nous pouvons nous libérer, où exercer nos libertés. Et chercher à avoir encore plus de vie publique ne signifie aucunement renoncer à contrôler sa vie privée.

Quel que soit le nombre de fois où vous entendrez un dirigeant, mâle, blanc et hétérosexuel d’une entreprise technologique pronostiquer la mort de la vie privée, rappelez-vous que “Privacy Is Not Dead” (la vie privée n’est pas morte). La vie privée, c’est le fait de pouvoir contrôler comment l’information circule, et comprendre les paramètres sociaux de sorte à pouvoir se comporter de manière appropriée.”

Amy Bruckman, qui étudie l’influence des réseaux sociaux sur l’éducation, estime que la façon décomplexée qu’ont les jeunes de s’exposer en ligne, d’en rire ou de s’en moquer, ne peut finalement qu’inciter les citoyens à plus de tolérance, d’incompréhension et, in fine, de respect du “droit à l’oubli“… sauf à imaginer que la quasi-totalité des “natifs du numérique” puisse être de facto écartée des postes de pouvoirs, en attendant que la génération d’après ait appris à écarter tout risque d’être ainsi ridiculisé. Une perspective peu probable tout de même…

Cette alternative a le mérite de poser les termes du débat : il nous revient, collectivement, de décider si nous voulons aller vers plus de tolérance, vers une société de sousveillance décomplexée où tout le monde a le droit d’observer tout le monde (dans le respect de ce que l’on a décidé de rendre public, ou pas), ou bien si nous voulons d’un monde encore plus sécuritaire, coincé, une société de surveillance et de suspicion qui ne connaîtrait pas le pardon, et qui opposerait ceux qui auraient le droit nous surveiller, et de nous sanctionner, et ceux qui n’auraient que le droit de se taire.

En tout état de cause, et dans la mesure où les données seront de plus en plus nombreuses, et facilement accessibles, dans la mesure où nous serons, dans le même temps, de plus en plus interconnectés, il sera probablement de plus en plus facile de retrouver la trace de certaines de nos erreurs (de jeunesse, ou pas), même si celles-ci sont ensevelies sous des volumes toujours plus grands de données.

Reste que, et c’est probablement plus important, l’internet est un espace public, un vecteur de socialisation, et nous n’y faisons pas tant d’erreurs que cela, d’autant que celles des autres nous servent aussi d’exemples à ne pas suivre.

Sans forcément connaître la nétiquette, qui définit les règles du savoir-vivre sur l’internet, tout internaute apprend ainsi rapidement qu’IL NE SERT À RIEN DE CRIER SUR LES GENS en leur écrivant en majuscule, et qu’il est généralement contre-productif de s’énerver (sauf à vouloir gagner un point Godwin), que les insultes ou les menaces peuvent vite vous êtes reprochés, etc.

Si les moteurs de recherche n’oublient rien, les êtres humains, si, ne serait-ce que parce qu’ils apprennent à faire avec. Citant David Weinberger, Jeff Jarvis estime ainsi qu’”une ère de la transparence doit aussi être une ère du pardon“. Encore faudrait-il peut-être plutôt parler, en l’espèce, de résilience, à savoir la capacité qu’ont les êtres humains de faire face à un choc, d’y résister, et d’apprendre à vivre avec.

Doux rêve, utopique voire fleur bleue ? Pas forcément, dès lors que l’on estime que ce ne sont pas les ordinateurs, non plus que des tiers ordonnateurs, qui doivent contrôler les êtres humains, mais que c’est bien aux citoyens d’être maîtres de leurs données, et destins.

Aux Etats-Unis, certains “libertariens“, hostiles par principe à toute forme de régulation par l’Etat, qualifient ainsi de “paternalisme de la vie privée” la propension qu’ont certains à considérer que les utilisateurs seraient trop bêtes, ou moutons, pour parvenir à protéger tout seuls leur vie privée sur l’internet, et qu’il faudrait le faire à leur place. De fait, le débat tourne généralement autour de trois propositions :

• protéger les gens par la loi, et l’imposer aux prestataires, comme aux utilisateurs, ce que fait déjà la CNIL, par exemple,
• donner aux gens la possibilité de “paramétrer” les “préférences” des logiciels et services web qu’ils utilisent, ce que font les “services du web 2.0,
• faire pression, en tant que consommateurs, pour que les éditeurs ne nous mettent pas “à poil sur le Net” à l’insu de notre plein gré, ce que font les utilisateurs avertis de ces questions.

De récents travaux de recherche révèlent une quatrième voie, en s’intéressant à la façon qu’ont les internautes, non pas tant de parler de ce qu’ils entendent par “vie privée” (ce qui renvoie, forcément, au “paradoxe de la vie privée“), mais aux moult manières qu’ils ont, concrètement, de la protéger.

En l’espèce, on découvre que le problème relève moins de la notion de “vie privée” que de celle de dignité, et que la solution a moins trait aux “cases à cocher“, non plus qu’aux interdits érigés par la loi, qu’aux nouvelles formes de socialisation et de rapports humains que génèrent l’internet.

C’est en tout cas la thèse de deux professeurs de droit, Avner Levin, du Privacy & Cyber Crime Institute, et Patricia Sánchez Abril, de la School of Business Administration de Miami, dans un article intitulé “Two Notions of Privacy Online” (deux notions de la vie privée en ligne).

Après avoir interrogé 2500 utilisateurs des réseaux sociaux de 18 à 24 ans sur leurs perceptions et pratiques de la vie privée en ligne, ils en sont arrivés à la conclusion que la perception que l’on se fait d’ordinaire de la vie privée est erronée, et que ni la législation, ni les mesures d’autorégulation, non plus que les conditions générales d’utilisation ou les chartes de protection de la vie privée des réseaux (ou silos) sociaux, ne répondent à leurs attentes, en tant qu’utilisateurs, non plus qu’à leurs pratiques, en tant qu’internautes.

Alors que l’objet même des réseaux sociaux est de faciliter les interactions sociales, le “contrôle” des informations qui y sont stockées, et donc de sa vie privée, n’y sont généralement perçue que sous le seul angle des données sensibles qu’il conviendrait de sécuriser.

Or, les utilisateurs ne sont pas des administrations, non plus que des entreprises privées. Et si l’on attend effectivement des responsables des fichiers clients, sociaux ou policiers que les données qu’ils contrôlent ne soient pas interconnectées, ou utilisées en-dehors du cadre de ce pour quoi elles ont été collectées, a contrario, nos données n’acquièrent jamais autant de valeur, dans les réseaux sociaux, que lorsqu’elles génèrent du lien social, et des interactions…

Comme le résument les deux chercheurs, “les individus qui se socialisent en ligne attendent de leurs réseaux qu’ils améliorent et non qu’ils entravent leur vie sociale“. Dit autrement : leur présence, sur ces réseaux, a d’autant plus de valeur que les données qu’ils y publient sont lues, commentées et partagées par d’autres utilisateurs. Manière, non seulement de renforcer les liens avec leur communauté, mais également d’entrer en contact et de partager des informations avec de nouveaux “amis” potentiels.

Or, l’approche juridique de la protection de la vie privée va précisément à l’encontre de l’interconnexion et du croisement des fichiers… On est au coeur du “paradoxe de la vie privée“.

Les “paramètres” et “préférences“, en terme de confidentialité, sont-ils à même de répondre positivement à ce paradoxe ? On peut en douter.

Facebook proposait ainsi, jusqu’à ce que, en décembre 2009, ce réseau social modifie son approche de la “privacy“, 7 façons de contrôler “qui peut vous trouver dans une recherche, ce qu’ils peuvent voir et comment ils peuvent vous contacter“, 10 façons de contrôler la rediffusion de ce que vous publiez sur les murs de vos amis, 16 façons de contrôler qui peut voir les informations de sa page de profil, et 22 façons de contrôler ce que les autres utilisateurs peuvent voir via les applications ayant accès à votre profil... soit quelque 55 cases à cocher ou menus déroulants censés nous aider à protéger notre vie privée...

Depuis, Facebook propose 12 menus déroulants permettant de définir qui peut accéder à son “profil” (”Tout le monde / Amis et leurs amis : Amis uniquement / Personnaliser” -s’ensuit un long menu déroulant permettant d’inclure ou d’exclure tels ou tels de ses “amis“), et les différentes pages qui le composent :

. A propos de moi
. Informations personnelles
. Date de naissance
. Opinions politiques et religieuses
. Famille et relations (situation amoureuse, sexe qui vous intéresse et relations que vous recherchez)
. Formation et emploi
. Photos et vidéos dans lesquelles vous avez été identifié(e)
. Albums photos
. Mes publications
. Autoriser mes amis à publier sur mon mur
. Publications de mes amis
. Commentaires sur les publications

Histoire de parfaire le tableau, rajoutons-y 9 façons de paramétrer la confidentialité de ses coordonnées (”Pseudonyme de messagerie(...)