We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
The American Founders

Oh, those guys who instituted a long policy of genocide against Native Americans.

Now aren't those the type of fathers that one can truly be proud of.

Please post a link to some evidence that the Founders instituted a long policy of genocide against Native Americans. I am proud of them and I will state my reasons so that we can debate them now. I am proud of them because they opposed a very strong oppressive ruler, because they were responsible for the remarkable philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and because they produced the American Constitution, which attempts to keep the government from becoming a dictatorship, and which contains the Bill of Rights which clearly states citizens' rights much stronger than those found in most other government charters. Shouldn't I be?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Frank, if someone could actually convince me that by giving up my right to privacy and allowing the gummint to stick its proboscis into places it has no business visiting would really help prevent another 9/11 or Boston Marathon disaster, I'd agree with you....

Even then, I wouldn't agree. The American Founders pretty much said it all on this subject and freedom fighters have been throwing these words in the faces of dictators ever since.

Right! Some people would even say, "Even if you could PROVE that such actions would save millions of lives...I still would object, because my personal privacy is paramount.

I disagree with that.

I would say that any valid government must protect the civil liberties of citizens, and it is not the government's right or business to invasively inspect the lives of law abiding citizens.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Actually, I don't think you and I disagree on the basics of this issue--we both agree that what's going on with this covert wide-scale phone surveillance is wrong. And I think we agree in our low opinion of how Congress has been functioning.

Any abuse that's going on, by the Obama administration, with regard to the surveillance tactics, is because Congress handed the feds the power to do it, by passing the Patriot Act, and then failing to keep careful rein on exactly how that power was being used, and the potential for it's misuse. They've kept on voting to re-authorize the Patriot Act without putting in sufficient oversight provisions, or curbs, even after it became clear they were needed.

I'm disappointed with Obama, on a number of things, but, on this one, I really lay the blame on Congress. They were the check and balance, and they didn't do their job well enough.

Oh, please! It's on Obama's watch and with his approval. He doesn't get a pass because he's a Democrat. It's like the loyalist fiction before the American Revolution that the taxes were imposed by Parliament without the king's cooperation.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I think it was Brandon who wrote--

Quote:

2. A secure society without freedom and privacy isn't worth having.

That is a theoretical position but many actual people, who have only suicide to stop being actual people, would disagree.

If you put it the other way round it means that freedom and privacy are worth being insecure and insecure enough for it to be felt rather than asserted. Real insecurity is a round the clock condition invading even sleep and has economically damaging consequences.

Background checks for gun ownership are an invasion of privacy.

The argument has been going on for a few thousand years. Loss of freedom in return for the benefits of social living.

We elect governments. We should trust them. The freedom argument is too precious, overdone and even a bit campy.

Some firefighters have died trying to protect people with the freedom to build where they want.

If you want the freedom to hop on a plane for a trip the Utah complex might be a necessity.

Quote:

I said, "stop the boat I wanna get off",
The mate said, "that's the limit!"
He stuck out a plank over the ocean wide and said,
"You want freedom boy? Get in it.
Get ******* in it."

An old punk song.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

the law does not allow that, and as you might have figured out by now I will take my last breath believing in the concepts of law and justice....

The law? If the military decided to move in any nation the laws will be change to allowed them to rule in short order.

Power come out of the barrel of the gun is sadly a true statement and we no longer had a true citizen army but instead a professional military.

No I do not think this will occur in the near future but like in Rome the change over from a citizen army to a professional one was the marker for possible problems.

Our founding father in fact greatly fear a standing army as unlike Firefly they knew and respected the warnings of history.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

...We elect governments. We should trust them....

Believe what you like, but this is the exact opposite of the philosophy expressed by the founders of the United States. It is in the nature of governments to try to take more power, sometimes in a slow and subtle way. The government must be made to understand that they are working for us and that we are not a pool of suspects.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

philosophy expressed by the founders of the United States. It is in the nature of governments to try to take more power, sometimes in a slow and subtle way. The government must be made to understand that they are working for us and that we are not a pool of suspects.

Yes, the founders fear the very government they was creating and try to surround this government with all manners of safeguards.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Frank, if someone could actually convince me that by giving up my right to privacy and allowing the gummint to stick its proboscis into places it has no business visiting would really help prevent another 9/11 or Boston Marathon disaster, I'd agree with you....

Even then, I wouldn't agree. The American Founders pretty much said it all on this subject and freedom fighters have been throwing these words in the faces of dictators ever since.

Right!

I would say that any valid government must protect the civil liberties of citizens, and it is not the government's right or business to invasively inspect the lives of law abiding citizens.

As I said: Some people would even say, "Even if you could PROVE that such actions would save millions of lives...I still would object, because my personal privacy is paramount.

Apparently you are one of them, Brandon...and respectfully as possible, I disagree with you and the others on that.

I disagree with that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

s I said: Some people would even say, "Even if you could PROVE that such actions would save millions of lives...I still would object, because my personal privacy is paramount.

You on the other hand need no proof at all just the self serving claims of those people running a many billions dollar government program.

To you our civil rights seems to mean nothing at all and you seems likely to be just as happy living in a police state with no civil rights or privacy rights that the government is not completely comfortable with.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Not to detract from the scholarship and perspicacity of our Founding Fathers, but haven't you ever wondered why these fine gentleman never thought about the possibility of including some Founding Mothers in what they were doing? Or why they never extended the privileges of citizenship, the foremost of those being the vote, to all the women in this great nation they were founding?

Then, of course, there was the little matter of slavery...

I'm getting a little tired of the "Founding Fathers" arguments when it concerns current issues, such as those we are discussing in this thread. Those men crafted a Constitution which could be amended, and continuously re-interpreted, to adapt to changing times and social mores, without sacrificing its basic principles. It's greatest strength may be in its elasticity.

And there is little doubt that these Founding Fathers also considered matters of national security, and the need for the government to provide this, in order that this nation, and its system of government, could continue to survive. And, since it's founding, we have seen laws come and go, that continue to define, and that limit or expand, how the government will carry out this task. And, in 2013, we continue to have these discussions, in the context of our own times, and the sorts of threats we face today.

I think that, as a nation, we've been fairly good at eventually recognizing our missteps, and taking some measures to correct them as we've moved forward, so that we now live in a country which extends more civil rights, and protects more civil liberties, to more groups of people, than just the ones our Founding Fathers thought about.

And, right now, we have amazing technology that the government can harness and put to good use in the interests of national security and the protection of the citizenry. And it's crucial that that power be also accompanied by oversight, and legal limitations, to protect from the crossing of boundaries that define abuse, or misuse, or unconstitutional applications. That's why we have the checks and balances, of both Congress and the judiciary, in addition to the free press that can inform.

Right now, we are discussing an issue that the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on, and cannot weigh in on, until a case involving these issues is brought before it. No justice on that court is going to give a media interview to throw in their 2 cents on the government's current phone surveillance arrangement with Verizon. So, no one posting in this thread actually knows how the Supreme Court might view this issue, or whether a majority would see a Fourth Amendment violation. And rulings by lower courts, on similar cases, do not indicate they would clearly see it that way.

So now, thanks to a "leaker", we are hearing things about government policies that are making a lot of us ask questions--questions like, "Is this legal?" and questions like, "How come we weren't informed about this?"--very valid questions, and questions that must be answered. There are also a few more questions we should be asking, like, "Is all of this leaked information true?" and "Who is this leaker, and what are his motives?" and "How come the government can't better protect the security of it's own highly classified information?" and, "Why wasn't Congress keeping better watch over how the Patriot Act was being used?"

I don't think any of us have clear answers to any of those questions. We have lots of opinions, lots of speculation, but not much in the way of factual information. So, it's really much too premature for people to be taking sides on this phone surveillance issue. What we need to do is keep asking questions, ferreting out more information, and having continuing public and Congressional discussion on the whole issue of national security vs personal privacy in today's world. And, when we, collectively, arrive at some sort of consensus, we can take action, informed action, to rein in and correct any abuse or illegality on the part of the government. First we really have to know exactly what's going on--and we're not there yet.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
s I said: Some people would even say, "Even if you could PROVE that such actions would save millions of lives...I still would object, because my personal privacy is paramount.

You on the other hand need no proof at all just the self serving claims of those people running a many billions dollar government program.

SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT EVEN IF GOD CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND STATED AS A FACT THAT SUCH ACTIONS WOULD SAVE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF LIVES...I STILL WOULD OBJECT, BECAUSE MY PERSONAL PRIVACY TRUMP EVERY GODDAM THING ON THIS PLANET.

Quote:

To you our civil rights seems to mean nothing at all and you seems likely to be just as happy living in a police state with no civil rights or privacy rights that the government is not completely comfortable with.

Nonsense. My civil rights mean plenty to me. I am willing, however, to make compromises that I see as reasonable.

We may not agree on what is reasonable, but I certainly am allowed to consider some things reasonable that you do not.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I think it was Brandon who wrote--

Quote:
2. A secure society without freedom and privacy isn't worth having.

That is a theoretical position but many actual people, who have only suicide to stop being actual people, would disagree.

If you put it the other way round it means that freedom and privacy are worth being insecure and insecure enough for it to be felt rather than asserted. Real insecurity is a round the clock condition invading even sleep and has economically damaging consequences.

Background checks for gun ownership are an invasion of privacy.

The argument has been going on for a few thousand years. Loss of freedom in return for the benefits of social living.

We elect governments. We should trust them. The freedom argument is too precious, overdone and even a bit campy.

Some firefighters have died trying to protect people with the freedom to build where they want.

If you want the freedom to hop on a plane for a trip the Utah complex might be a necessity.

Quote:
I said, "stop the boat I wanna get off",
The mate said, "that's the limit!"
He stuck out a plank over the ocean wide and said,
"You want freedom boy? Get in it.
Get ******* in it."

An old punk song.

I would love to write and say that I agree with damn near everything you wrote here, Spendius...but you get even more upset and insulting when I agree with you than when I disagree.

So...I do agree with damn near everything you wrote here...but I am going to write it small.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

And it's crucial that that power be also accompanied by oversight

ooopps, there goes your argument, cut to shreds by the knife in your own hands. this government has just proven that it is fine with using power against the citizens, WITHOUT TELLING THE CITIZENS, much less getting consent.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

this government has just proven that it is fine with using power against the citizens, WITHOUT TELLING THE CITIZENS, much less getting consent

How has the government "just proven that it is fine with using power against the citizens?" What has it actually done to citizens, with this phone surveillance operation, that was against their interests? I'm a Verizon customer, and I don't feel that way--Verizon already knows who I'm calling. That doesn't mean I don't want to know what's being done with my phone metadata information, or exactly why it's being collected. And, I'm glad that the ACLU, as a Verizon business customer, is taking the issue into a courtroom with the suit they just filed.

Why do you keep ignoring the Patriot Act? That's where the "consent" came from. The feds got it from Congress. It's up to Congress to represent the interests of constituents. The government isn't going to poll all of us before instituting national security policies that the Patriot Act may have handed them the power to institute. Congress came up with the Patriot Act, and they've re-voted to continue it--and that's who is consenting, and that's who should be minding the store in terms of how it's being used.

1 Reply

@firefly,

My my firefly attacking someone by taking them out of their time and place and applying modern morals standards that mostly come to be in my own lifetime and trying to used that fact that they do not match up to this standard to downgrade their amazing achievements.

Quote:

those men crafted a Constitution which could be amended, and continuously re-interpreted, to adapt to changing times and social mores, without sacrificing its basic principles. It's greatest strength may be in its elasticity

Where is the constitution being amended instead of being bypass in this debate?

Quote:

And, right now, we have amazing technology that the government can harness and put to good use in the interests of national security and the protection of the citizenry.

An very very bad used at the will of whoever is in charge of the government at the moment. Hell not even the government just anyone in charge of the agencies like NSA.

Hoover with his secret files on the leadership of this nation for a few generations that allowed him to blackmail Presidents on down would be a piker compare to the control by blackmailing of the politicians that the head of NSA could gain within weeks not years of collecting information that Hoover needed to do.

This is the same as designing and building an elephant gun and then claiming it will only be used on small game as the infrastructure that is being build is strangely a few hundred times more then would be needed to keep track of a few oversea and US base terrorists.

Quote:

how the Supreme Court might view this issue, or whether a majority would see a Fourth Amendment violation. And rulings by lower courts, on similar cases, do not indicate they would clearly see it that way.

Given the history of this court when dealing with so call national security issues our civil right had little chance of being protected by them anymore then the movie producer rights was protected in the case I had already written about or the Japanese Americans right was protected.

The producer ended up in a prison cell and tens of thousands of US citizens ended up behind barbed wire fences.

Our only hope and it is a slim one is that enough people will be outrage that the government will pull back from the elephant gun and go back to an infrastructure that is more fitting to the task at hand and is not able to placed all of us under a surveillance state.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Why do you keep ignoring the Patriot Act?

i dont, it is a law that has been written purposefully vague so that the state can use it as a pretext to do about anything that it wants to do, which is normal for our modern deeply ill justice system. But this time the state went one step further than normal to write secret interpretations of that law which it used as a pass to spy on its citizens without consent. and when I say that neither party stood up for the people so ****. them. both. I am talking about this sham law that has been used to justify our abuse.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

the infrastructure that is being build is strangely a few hundred times more then would be needed to keep track of a few oversea and US base terrorists...Our only hope and it is a slim one is that enough people will be outrage that the government will pull back from the elephant gun and go back to an infrastructure that is more fitting to the task at hand and is not able to placed all of us under a surveillance state

When you're looking for a needle in a haystack, you need to examine the whole haystack.

We don't know where all those terrorists are, or who they are...and we're talking about networks, and not just "a few". If we knew who they were, and when we do start identifying them, then the surveillance net can, and does, narrow.

It's Congress that handed the feds the surveillance elephant gun, with the Patriot Act, and it's Congress that has to decide whether to ask for the gun back, or insist that it be modified so it can't be used as an "assault weapon" against innocent law-abiding citizens.

And we, and Congress, need much more factual informational information, about what's actually going on with this elephant gun surveillance, than we have right now. And the discussions, and the questions being raised, in the halls of Congress, and in our media, will, hopefully, elicit that information.
.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

It's Congress that handed the feds the surveillance elephant gun, with the Patriot Act, and it's Congress that has to decide whether to ask for the gun back, or insist that it be modified so it can't be used as an "assault weapon" against innocent law-abiding citizens.

wow just wow. congress is part of the feds, they usurped their authority, and now we see if the people or the courts do anything about it. btw, a "law abiding citizen" is by definition a citizen who is doing what the state wants them to do...i see no passage in the constitution that indicates that this document applies only to those who the state is happy with, and furthermore I find your insinuation that rights only apply to those that the state wants to allow to have rights to be deeply offensive.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Right! Some people would even say, "Even if you could PROVE that such actions would save millions of lives...I still would object, because my personal privacy is paramount.

The "some people" are perfectly free to make such a remark without being laughed at if they live in a cave with no utility services and no protection from the results of injuries, diseases and the predatory animals of the wild and especially those who don't live with such an idiotic statements.

And there would be no Lola's Coffee Shop.

In fact there would be nobody for the silly sods to say it to.

In a modern western society such people should be made to wear their underpants outside their trousers, on a 3 strikes and your out basis, so that others might be warned peacefully of their near approach.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I am talking about this sham law that has been used to justify our abuse.

You really aren't directly addressing the Patriot Act or its provisions.

Quote:

But this time the state went one step further than normal to write secret interpretations of that law...

Are you saying Congress wrote "secret interpretations"? The feds wrote them? The judiciary? Which part of "the state" are you referring to? It certainly seems that Sen. Diane Feinstein, and her committee, knew what was going on, as did other members of Congress who were on the appropriate committees. And other members of Congress, who were entitled to the information, skipped the briefings that would have better informed them. I don't know that any of this surveillance action, on the part of the feds, was really "secret"--members of Congress were aware, and they were consenting. And those members of Congress, who weren't satisfied with the level of transparency, about what the feds were doing, shouldn't have kept consenting to the re-authorization of the Patriot Act until they knew how it was being used.

When it comes to highly classified national security information, and how it is gathered, I think there are limits to how much can be disclosed to the general public without compromising and damaging our national security efforts . But members of Congress are in the loop. I want to hear their justification for approving all of this. And they can do that, in part, by referencing information which has now been declassified. And they can also do that by seeking more answers from the feds and by continuing to hold hearings--open hearings.

You and I both want more information and answers, and we've got to keep demanding it from Congress. I want these people to earn their money, and do the job I expect them to do.

2 Replies

We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know