INCREASING ASSAULTS ON OUR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY GOOD REASON FOR PARANOIA

Who feels sorry for Bill Gates? I certainly don't but the Department of Justice's case against Microsoft does bother me. When the judge announced his decision charging Microsoft with breaking anti-trust laws he cited evidence obtained from internal Microsoft documents.

How on earth did the government get hold of Microsoft's internal documents, I wondered? Is nothing private anymore? It was this aspect of the trial that bothered me more than the charges that Microsoft was a monopoly.

I decided to do some research to determine if the government is becoming Big Brother as forecast by George Orwell in his novel, ``1984.''. The ever-encroaching arm of the government reaching into our private lives is very worrisome. It is, to me, just as offensive to subpoena a receipt of a book purchased by Monica Lewinsky as it was to subpoena Clarence Thomas' video rentals.

I am also still reeling from the fact that the public never seemed to be very upset about the Filegate scandal. Confidential FBI file data on Republican employees from the Reagan and Bush administrations was wrongfully accessed by the Clinton administration. I found this to be more criminal than Nixon having an enemy's list because the information in those files contained unsubstantiated rumors that might make the file's subject vulnerable to blackmail. I suspected that the information in those files was given to porn king, Larry Flynt.
During last year's impeachment trial, private revelations about Bob Livingston, the nominated Speaker of the House and Henry Hyde, were conveniently leaked by Mr. Flynt just before the impeachment proceedings began. Did this information about their sexual peccadilloes come from those infamous FBI files?

So I set out to get confirmation of my suspicions but I could not find evidence that the justice department sought out internal documents. Instead, I learned that these documents were probably leaked from inside Microsoft or were part of Microsoft's own defense case so that blew away my conspiracy theory.

Additionally, while researching Filegate, I read the list published by the Washington Times of the names in the illegally accessed FBI files and could not find Livingston or Hyde's name.

Well, I thought, there goes my idea for next week's column. Still I realize that I have a duty to report what I did find whether it suits my agenda or not. The problem with journalism today is that we are only reporting or commenting on things that support our positions instead of reporting all of the pertinent facts.

I would have loved to point out my findings and say, ``See, I told you so'' but I can't. This does not mean that my suspicions about Filegate are baseless. It just means that they remain suspicions instead of hard evidence and that's what does deserve to be published.

Perhaps my paranoia about government intrusion into our personal lives began in 1995 when I read about the sexual harassment case against Oregon Senator Bob Packwood that ultimately led to his resignation. Senator Packwood admitted his guilt and probably deserved to be censured. He did the right thing by resigning but I am still flabbergasted that his private diary was subpoenaed and its contents revealed to the whole country.

I did not care much for the Senator's politics but I still believe he had his rights to privacy and did not deserve to have his most personal thoughts exposed on all the front pages of newspapers. If it could happen to him, is anybody safe?

The idea that a government can subpoena one's journal of personal thoughts is abhorrent and smacks of totalitarianism. Since the Supreme Court rendered its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision based on an individual's right to privacy then shouldn't this apply to all Americans? If it doesn't, then there exists a possibility that Roe v. Wade may be constitutionally invalid.

As for the Microsoft case, it's important to remember that the case against Microsoft by the Department of Justice was not initiated on behalf of the consumer but rather by complaints by Microsoft's competitors. I was under the mistaken impression that we live in a capitalistic society but apparently this is not the case. Competition is not the name of the game if you become too successful.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson completely dismissed Microsoft's repeated courtroom claims and a key part of its defense that the Linux operating system can compete against Windows. Users ``have by and large shown little inclination to abandon Windows with its reliable developer support, in favor of an operating systems whose future in the PC realm is unclear,'' he wrote.

In other words, who cares what consumers want? What Janet Reno and the Department of Justice decide is far more important. This particular D.O.J., which is responsible for the Waco debacle, seems to be systematically targeting our civil liberties under the Constitution.

Did you know that the government could legally tap your phone if you happen to know or be near a suspect of one of their investigations? If your neighbor is under suspicion for drug dealing, for instance, and is an occasional visitor to your home, then the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have the right to put your home under surveillance. This ``roving wiretap'' authority was given to them by The Intelligence Authorization Act Conference Report legislation, which was signed into law by Clinton on October 8th, 1998.

According to respected columnist, Nat Hentoff: ``This abolition of much of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights was slipped into a conference report without public hearings or debate in the Congress.''

I may be naïve but I expected more vigilance from a Republican-controlled Congress that claims to be against government intrusion into our lives.

After the Microsoft decision, it was rumored that Bill Gates would postpone settling the case until after the 2000 election when hopefully a different Department of Justice is in power. That's over a year away. I wonder if the Bill of Rights can wait that long.