1000 Eyes

An interesting article has come about on Truth Out. It's in regards to the Federal government wanting more surveillance on the Internet. One of the concerns according to the justice department is the tracking of suspected criminals. In this regard the justice department is pressing ISPs(Internet Service Providers) to retain data of customer Internet usage. One of the proponents is attorney general Alberto Gonzalez. He points out that data retention should be mandatory, calling it a "national problem that requires federal legislation". I call this another grand scheme by the State.
Whether these proponents of the data retention proposal are genuine about theses concerns is irrelevant to me. The only relevant question is does government have a right to infringe on the private matters of individuals? The answer is a resounding NO. Government doesn't even have a right to exist let alone verge into someone's private world. The natural rights of a non-aggressor should never be violated. If someone were to be a criminal(i.e. stealing, property damage,murder) then the one that was aggressed would demand restitution from the initiator. In this case there was no aggression involved in these government infringements.
The State makes everyone a criminal in this new proposal. Censorship of the web, of the kind seen in China, could possibly linger. With the advancement of interventionist policies such as the "drug war",tariffs,taxes,environmental measuures, the State will assert more control over the populace. Many may look at this as a step closer in the right direction. Now Ill admit, there are criminals that need to give restitution for their actions, but being invasive on the internet will not help the situation. Molesters, thieves, and murderers will always find a way to commit their deeds. The best method to stop these criminals in the first place is personal determent. With the intervention of the State into a person's self defense, such as laws on personal conduct and gun control, an individual is now suspected as a criminal and is defenseless. I do not see how the State can be revered as protector. Then again it never was in the first place.