Staying a Step Ahead of the Stalkers

---

---

It is hard to remember Rebecca Schaeffer. I can look at a picture of her today and be unable to place where I saw her — or if I saw her or what her voice sounded like.

When you look at her picture, you can see that she had an appealing smile, a generally engaging demeanor. (Yes, I do think you can tell that from a picture.) But there have always been many of those in the entertainment world.

Of course, it has been more than 25 years since she graced our television screens in My Sister Sam, a sitcom that lasted a couple of seasons in the 1980s. She had a small part in Woody Allen's "Radio Days," but those scenes were cut. Otherwise, she hadn't made much of a dent in her field — yet.

She was 21 years old, still new on the entertainment scene, seemed to possess some star quality. I was aware of her name, but I can't say that I watched either My Sister Sam or the handful of movies she made, a couple of which were released after her 1989 murder — when, I suppose, her commercial appeal was at its height.

But we know that at least one person, 19–year–old Robert John Bardo of Tucson, Ariz., was watching.

He became obsessed with her after the first object of his obsession, a child peace activist named Samantha Smith, died in a plane crash. Bardo stalked Schaeffer for awhile; he even tried to gain access to the studio where her TV show was filmed, but he was kept out by security. For awhile, it seems he lost interest in her and fixated on others, but he zeroed in on her again after watching one of her movies and seeing her in bed with an actor.

Bardo hired an investigator to find Schaeffer's home address, which he did through Department of Motor Vehicles records. Bardo then confronted Schaeffer at her home 25 years ago today. Schaeffer answered the door, gave Bardo an autograph and went back to her apartment. She thought he had gone away when her doorbell rang a second time. She went to answer it, and Bardo shot her in the chest.

Who knows what goes through the mind of such a person? Does he think of the consequences of his crime? If Bardo bothered to think at all about how his act would be perceived by anyone — and, based on my experience as a police reporter, I doubt that he gave any thought to it, especially how it would be perceived by the media or social activists — he probably thought it would be treated like one of thousands of murders that were committed that year.

But it wasn't. It was a landmark legal event that made government acknowledge stalking for what it was. Prior to Schaeffer's murder, my impression is that stalking was treated as a "boyfriend/girlfriend" thing. Even if the two were not lovers, even if one was a total stranger to the other. Those were merely details.

It wasn't taken seriously. It wasn't treated like a real crime. Of course, it was and is a real crime. Schaeffer's death was a flashpoint for that realization. A public epiphany.

Laws were changed to protect the privacy of citizens, prohibiting state Departments of Motor Vehicles from releasing personal information about licensed drivers.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the end of it. The advent of the internet, with its online address search services, significantly eroded that law's impact. Today, anyone with access to a computer and the know–how to use it can do what that investigator did for Bardo 25 years ago.

Evolving technology has changed most things, and those who would rather such private information is not so readily available to potential stalkers need to be steadfast in their resolve.

For all the Rebecca Schaeffers out there, we must stay a step ahead of the stalkers.

Intelligence Gathering: How Far Is Too Far?

Anna Eshoo and Mike McConnell present a balanced discussion of the subject of intelligence gathering in an article about "broad intelligence programs run by the National Security Agency" in the Wall Street Journal.

It's a tricky matter, how to handle the necessary work that must be done in the post-9/11 world. And those who gather that data are not perfect -- and, therefore, not immune to misinterpreting what they've gathered.

"One of us (Eshoo) sees this as the latest in a string of troubling accusations about the erosion of privacy and civil liberties since 9/11," the Journal's writers say. "The other (McConnell) sees it as more hyperbole and inaccurate press reports designed to mislead the public into thinking that the intelligence community is acting against American law and values. Honest people can differ on these tough issues. We think it is healthy. This is America, after all."

This is a country in which the concept of individual privacy has always been important. When this issue is brought up, the phrase "right to privacy" can't be far behind.

But, no matter how much one is inclined to believe that the right to privacy is implicit in the American system, the fact is that the word "privacy" is never mentioned in the Constitution.

Depending upon one's individual interpretations, the "right to privacy" may be implied in several constitutional amendments. But it's never directly expressed.

There are laws, of course, that are designed to protect certain types of privacy. Financial records, phone records, and medical records, for example, are protected by law.

And the relevance of one's arrest record to the case at hand determines how much of that record can be disclosed in court.

But no one is above the law. President Nixon learned, to his chagrin, that his claim of "executive privilege" did not shield his perceived right to privacy in the Watergate investigation.

And, in other situations -- the workplace, for example -- the individual's right to privacy doesn't exist. Whether the individual's activities on company-owned equipment, like computers and telephones, are closely monitored, or the company installs cameras to monitor employees' physical movements, personal rights must be relinquished, to a degree, at work.

In short, it's a gray area.

So, to a certain extent, both Eshoo and McConnell -- and the millions of Americans who agree with each -- are correct.

And, as Eshoo and McConnell point out, there are certain things upon which both sides can agree.

"First, we both agree that America's intelligence efforts must adapt to evolving threats," say Eshoo and McConnell. "Asymmetric threats, such as terrorism, cannot be defeated using conventional means. Stopping an adversary that hides its activities, blends into the local population, and moves easily across borders requires more than just overhearing what our adversaries are saying."

That's true. As the saying goes, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

"Second, the modern American intelligence community ... was designed to counter Cold War threats," the Journal's writers point out. "Today, data flows know no boundaries. ... If we are going to ask our intelligence agencies to help defend our country, we need to carefully construct policies that give them access to this information when necessary, and protect the rights of Americans."

Also true. Like the overburdened electricity grids that provide essential power to our cities, our intelligence community was created in another era for different purposes. Modern goals require modern methods.

"Third, we need a first-rate, professional intelligence workforce. ... Technology is vitally important. But a computer is only as good as the person who programs it. No piece of technology can substitute human judgment."

Technology and "human judgment" must proceed, hand in hand. Technology is too impersonal to be given this responsibility by itself. And humans are too error-prone to go forward without the aid of modern technology.

In a warning from the authors that must be heeded, particularly in recessionary times, Eshoo and McConnell say, "Fourth, our reliance on the Internet has made us more prosperous as a nation, but also more vulnerable.

"With so many of our communications and business transactions handled online, our adversaries can penetrate those networks and cause great disruption and harm. ... Preventing a cyber attack will require tremendous cooperation between the government and the private sector, and above all, a common understanding that our liberty and our security go hand in hand."

Whoever is elected president must pay particular attention to their final point:

"[N]o cyber-security plan will succeed without congressional support. Checks and balances are essential in a democracy, particularly when the matter concerns secret government programs that rightly remain out of the public view. Active congressional oversight gives the public confidence that their rights and their security are being properly attended to, and such oversight allows Congress to say so confidently and publicly."

Freedom matters to us all. But we mustn't sacrifice individual privacy to preserve national freedom.

We need thoughtful answers to complex problems.