News Eye on Americans - the FBI's Database on YOU

[nismaratwork]

I have to agree in the whole "I have nothing to hide" thing. This situation is akin to the UK identity card scheme where the government wanted to keep details of everyone on a national database.

How does the government monitoring my life change it in any way? It doesn't. In the same way my driving doesn't change when a police car pulls out behind me. I wasn't doing anything illegal before and I'm not doing anything illegal now.

It depends a lot on your government, and I'd add, how well they secure that information. I will say this however: WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

Let me clarify: We don't all have criminal or fundamentally terrible behaviour to hide, but we all WANT to hide some things. I'd just add; what if (relating to another thread) COICA goes through and you're suddenly wanting to access perfectly legal content in another country, but now it's a crime... what do you do? Do you STILL have nothing to hide? Times change, but databses and dossiers remain... what you don't care to hide now you may want to in the future... or maybe you just don't want the FBI to know that you can't get it up without medication, or that you were an addict in your teens because they take the anonymous out of *A. Maybe you're a perfectly good guy, but also gay, and you feel that's your business alone or worse, it later becomes something considered criminal (as it was once).

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is not a reasonable once, as much as I respect you personally, this argument doesn't work.

NOTE: The examples I gave are all pulled from whole cloth, with none representing personal issues or anyone else's issues.

 

[nismaratwork]

Seems unrealistic to me. I know there are cases of people's names being mixed up and they lose jobs because the company checked them against someone else's record. Criminal record checks generally aren't that thorough to pick up details such as potential connections (sex offenders have gotten into school jobs).

I'd also say that if this is the case, it highlights a flaw in the system and not in the monitoring itself.

I visit PF, it is noted to share a server with an anti-G20 site, it is flagged. Unless it is checked and proven there is a connection between me and anti-G20 supporters then it shouldn't be something that comes up on a record check.

It depends on the check, and it depends on how intelligent, trained, educated and reasonable the person is who's running it. You're throwing a lot on the mercy of an institution that is by its very nature, changeable.

I personally can say that if you're willing to pay a minimal amount of money, you'd be shocked what you can find about someone. You can get access to meta-lists made by tracing purchases with discount grocery, pharmacy and other cards to get an idea of what you buy. You can get any records of lawsuits they've been involved in, where they live and have lived, their phone numbers, cell provider and number, vehicles, family members and THEIR info and of course criminal background checks.

Put it all together and for between $20-$500 USD you can go WAY past being able to socially engineer yourself as another person... you're able to get a real picture of their life, likes, dislikes, finances, criminality or lack thereof, are they litigious, travel history...

That's a PRIVATE citizen using LEGAL means, so when a sex offender makes it into a school it is the school's fault. Oh, the criminal used a fake name?... shocker! Unless he's James Bond, check the identity he's claiming using the aforementioned means and you'll at least know they're not who they claim to be. You can't look at the failures of people to use existing resources as an argument for their inefficacy. I think filtering telecom traffic through a big sieve for key-phrases, names and such is a fine system where national security is concerned, but when it comes to building a file... you need a human to sort the coincidence and chaff from the grain as it were. That just isn't done enough, or well enough when it is.

 

[JaredJames]

It depends a lot on your government, and I'd add, how well they secure that information.

British government, not very well.

I will say this however: WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

You know this? You know me? Between facebook, PF and Google (my accounts) there is very little you couldn't find about me on the net alone.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is not a reasonable once, as much as I respect you personally, this argument doesn't work.

Well doing something in your past does not mean you have done / will do it again. That's where innocent until proven guilty comes in. They see you were an addict, they may get suspicious, but unless they can prove you are connected to the recent drug issue there's nothing they can do.
If it's something that doesn't change so easily (being gay for example), if it was made illegal in the future then you are breaking the law. If it's on record and you are prosecuted the monitoring has done its job. I know it sounds harsh (and I have nothing against gay people) but if being gay was illegal, whether you hide it or not you are breaking the law and all that not monitoring people does is alter the if/when of getting caught. (Think of it like speeding, many people do it and hide it but every now and then people get caught. By adding monitoring [in this case average speed cameras over prolonged periods of motorway] you simply increase the chances of catching law breakers).

 

[JaredJames]

you need a human to sort the coincidence and chaff from the grain as it were. That just isn't done enough, or well enough when it is.

Completely agree with you there.

 

[nismaratwork]

British government, not very well.


You know this? You know me? Between facebook, PF and Google (my accounts) there is very little you couldn't find about me on the net alone.


Well doing something in your past does not mean you have done / will do it again. That's where innocent until proven guilty comes in. They see you were an addict, they may get suspicious, but unless they can prove you are connected to the recent drug issue there's nothing they can do.
If it's something that doesn't change so easily (being gay for example), if it was made illegal in the future and it was on record you were gay then you are breaking the law. The monitoring has done its job. I know it sounds harsh (and I have nothing against gay people) but if being gay was illegal, whether you hide it or not you are breaking the law and all that not monitoring people does is alter the if/when of getting caught. (Think of it like speeding, many people do it and hide it but every now and then people get caught. By adding monitoring [in this case average speed cameras over prolonged periods of motorway] you simply increase the chances of catching law breakers).

re: bold... You're ABSOLUTELY right, but life isn't always so fair, and neither is the government or employers. Given that you just pointed out that the UK doesn't secure its data well... I could see 'trouble ahead', as the saying goes.

Now, I don't KNOW you have something to hide, but if you didn't I'd KNOW you weren't human. Everyone at least THINKS they have something to hide... it's human nature... it's unavoidable.

Now, the speed monitoring is not a bad idea, but the consequence is proportional to the act. You're actually being caught breaking a law... this is about gathering and collating information without either of those being the case.

 

[nismaratwork]

Completely agree with you there.

Oh, I can never stay mad at you calico-cat faced avatar guy!

 

[Proton Soup]

You cobbled together unrelated quotes there, but in any case: None of our rights are absolute, including our right to privacy -- and regardless, how is that relevant? Profiling doesn't require obtaining private information, so the right to privacy isn't relevant.

Please explain in more detail what you think is unethical in those quotes.

you think this:

Profiling is a critically important police tactic.

and this:

Non sequitur. Not only are we not in a position to know if it is useful, whether it is useful doesn't have any bearing on the ethics of doing it. All that matters is that the police think it is useful.

are unrelated?

now, a couple of things. we may disagree about what constitutes public and private. if you pay attention to what is happening with police arresting people for taping them, you'd notice that they are claiming their privacy is being invaded, even when in uniform. and probably most people would agree that following them around in public when they're off-duty might be crossing the line. even though they are in public, it might be an invasion of their privacy. and modern data collection on ones daily activities, especially by government agencies, might also be considered invasive and an infringement on ones privacy. and what about my medical records? i consider that private information, even though it does end up in some company's database. should the government be allowed to purchase access to the for the purposes of profiling? the trouble is, we are in one of those areas again where the founders could not have foreseen the level of monitoring that is possible with new technology. somehow, i don't think they would approve.

and the other thing, of course, is that there is a fine line between profiling and prejudice. and prejudices of course lead to harassment and infringement of liberty.

 

[nismaratwork]

you think this:

and this:

are unrelated?

now, a couple of things. we may disagree about what constitutes public and private. if you pay attention to what is happening with police arresting people for taping them, you'd notice that they are claiming their privacy is being invaded, even when in uniform. and probably most people would agree that following them around in public when they're off-duty might be crossing the line. even though they are in public, it might be an invasion of their privacy. and modern data collection on ones daily activities, especially by government agencies, might also be considered invasive and an infringement on ones privacy. and what about my medical records? i consider that private information, even though it does end up in some company's database. should the government be allowed to purchase access to the for the purposes of profiling? the trouble is, we are in one of those areas again where the founders could not have foreseen the level of monitoring that is possible with new technology. somehow, i don't think they would approve.

and the other thing, of course, is that there is a fine line between profiling and prejudice. and prejudices of course lead to harassment and infringement of liberty.

Would this country exist if the day after Thomas Jefferson slept with one of his slaves, it was known by everyone in the colony? I think men of such a time would have understood the need for privacy, for the right to conduct legal (if not accepted or moral) actions in private. Beyond that, maybe the founders could have forseen massive bombs, or bigger guns... but live HD video with sound through a pinhole?... nah. I think we need to be having more of these discussions before we just roll out the tech and the troops so to speak.

 

[edward]

It looks like it is time to re-post an old link. Spying on the Home Front.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/

Not much has changed except the sheer volume of information that has been collected.

BTW the FBI still uses private companies to do the data mining.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Unless it is checked and proven there is a connection between me and anti-G20 supporters then it shouldn't be something that comes up on a record check.

The problem with pervasive monitoring is that there is too much data for careful legal in-court type checks. The checks become automated and since nothing is ever proved it all just becomes 'background suspicion' - then inevitably for the "safety of the children" or to be "tough on crime" or to fight a "war on terrorism" then somebody raises the bar so a suspicion is enough to act on.

 

[nismaratwork]

The problem with pervasive monitoring is that there is too much data for careful legal in-court type checks. The checks become automated and since nothing is ever proved it all just becomes 'background suspicion' - then inevitably for the "safety of the children" or to be "tough on crime" or to fight a "war on terrorism" then somebody raises the bar so a suspicion is enough to act on.

People are so scared of the one in a (million? 10 million? more?) of being killed by a terrorist that they sell their liberties for the illusion of safety. It's pathetic.

 

[mugaliens]

People are so scared of the one in a (million? 10 million? more?) of being killed by a terrorist that they sell their liberties for the illusion of safety. It's pathetic.

It's approximately 1 in 100,000 over a thirty-year period, but you're right - people's fears and our country's fear-based reaction have been driven by media, not statistics.

Compare the 1 in 100,000 chance of being a terrorism victin to the odds of dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the mismatch in numbers becomes extraordinary. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something! I'm saying we should re-direct funding towards those efforts which aren't so extradinarily costly in terms of human lives.

Meanwhile, my chances of being the victim of a violent crime over the same thirty-year period are approximately 1 in 600, and that's in one of the safest communities here in the U.S. That's about 160 times greater than my chances of being a victim of terrorism.

What if the profile goes something like this: Imagine the FBI has intelligence which indicates domestic terrorists are likely to use a specific (legal) weapon. Therefore, from now on all Americans who buy or own that type of weapon should be flagged for increased scrutiny.

If you've done nothing wrong, and even if the activity that got you flagged is guaranteed by the Constitution, is it OK for the government to track you?

You raise a great point, Lisa, one that's becoming a hot button here in Colorado. It seems the state police and other law enforcement agencies have been keeping and using a database of those who carry concealed handgun permits (CHP) despite the fact that the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 18-12-206 Parts 3(a) and 3(b)(I)) makes it patently illegal for them to do so. "When asked whether the database was useful, 72 percent of 74 responding officers said it was. Many said it kept law enforcement officers safer because they knew who was armed with a gun. Their perception was mistaken, however, the audit noted." - http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16900805#ixzz18fwuXHjs"

Aside from the illegality of the database itself, their line of reasoning is absurd for two reasons:

1. Obtaining a CHP requires a background check substantial enough that the fast majority of those who wouldn't qualify never bother to apply. Even so, nearly 1 in 10 of those who do apply are rejected. Furthermore, FBI stats show that CHP holders are many times less likely to be involved in any sort of violent confrontation than are members of the general public. Thus, those with a CHP are among the safest people they're likely to stop, whether they're carrying a firearm or not.

2. As anyone can carry a firearm in their vehicle here in Colorado, any assumption about knowing who is armed or not by using the CHP database merely gives law enforcement a very false sense of security. It's the ones about which they don't have any information that are the ones likely to cause trouble!

Regardless, the reason it's illegal for other law enforcement agencies to keep such a database is because of the potential for gross misuse, including profiling with justifications like the one given in this article.

Thankfully, a few county sheriff's appear to have actually read the law, and instead of illegally sharing their CHP database with other law enforcement agencies as prohibited by C.R.S., they're actually following the law. Thank you, Sheriff Terry Makita!

Thus, is profiling bad? Not in itself, as it can significantly reduce the time it takes to narrow down a list of suspects, while increasing the liklihood of legally stopping them before mayhem ensues.

When it leads to wrong conclusions, such as is happening with the illegal CHP database here in Colorado, however, yes, it's bad.

 

[WhoWee]

It's approximately 1 in 100,000 over a thirty-year period, but you're right - people's fears and our country's fear-based reaction have been driven by media, not statistics.

Compare the 1 in 100,000 chance of being a terrorism victin to the odds of dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the mismatch in numbers becomes extraordinary. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something! I'm saying we should re-direct funding towards those efforts which aren't so extradinarily costly in terms of human lives.

Meanwhile, my chances of being the victim of a violent crime over the same thirty-year period are approximately 1 in 600, and that's in one of the safest communities here in the U.S. That's about 160 times greater than my chances of being a victim of terrorism.

Let's not forget that some people are more at risk than others, with NY and Washington leading the list of targets. Also, people who fly often might be at a greater risk than people who've never flown. Anyone who lives near a seaport might be more at risk than someone who lives near a midwest corn field.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's approximately 1 in 100,000 over a thirty-year period, but you're right - people's fears and our country's fear-based reaction have been driven by media, not statistics.

Compare the 1 in 100,000 chance of being a terrorism victin to the odds of dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the mismatch in numbers becomes extraordinary. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something! I'm saying we should re-direct funding towards those efforts which aren't so extradinarily costly in terms of human lives.

Meanwhile, my chances of being the victim of a violent crime over the same thirty-year period are approximately 1 in 600, and that's in one of the safest communities here in the U.S. That's about 160 times greater than my chances of being a victim of terrorism.



You raise a great point, Lisa, one that's becoming a hot button here in Colorado. It seems the state police and other law enforcement agencies have been keeping and using a database of those who carry concealed handgun permits (CHP) despite the fact that the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 18-12-206 Parts 3(a) and 3(b)(I)) makes it patently illegal for them to do so. "When asked whether the database was useful, 72 percent of 74 responding officers said it was. Many said it kept law enforcement officers safer because they knew who was armed with a gun. Their perception was mistaken, however, the audit noted." - http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16900805#ixzz18fwuXHjs"

Aside from the illegality of the database itself, their line of reasoning is absurd for two reasons:

1. Obtaining a CHP requires a background check substantial enough that the fast majority of those who wouldn't qualify never bother to apply. Even so, nearly 1 in 10 of those who do apply are rejected. Furthermore, FBI stats show that CHP holders are many times less likely to be involved in any sort of violent confrontation than are members of the general public. Thus, those with a CHP are among the safest people they're likely to stop, whether they're carrying a firearm or not.

2. As anyone can carry a firearm in their vehicle here in Colorado, any assumption about knowing who is armed or not by using the CHP database merely gives law enforcement a very false sense of security. It's the ones about which they don't have any information that are the ones likely to cause trouble!

Regardless, the reason it's illegal for other law enforcement agencies to keep such a database is because of the potential for gross misuse, including profiling with justifications like the one given in this article.

Thankfully, a few county sheriff's appear to have actually read the law, and instead of illegally sharing their CHP database with other law enforcement agencies as prohibited by C.R.S., they're actually following the law. Thank you, Sheriff Terry Makita!

Thus, is profiling bad? Not in itself, as it can significantly reduce the time it takes to narrow down a list of suspects, while increasing the liklihood of legally stopping them before mayhem ensues.

When it leads to wrong conclusions, such as is happening with the illegal CHP database here in Colorado, however, yes, it's bad.

Wow... your point #2 really punches this idiocy full of holes. I want to see the patrol cops come out and say on the record that they're going to assume that a license plate that doesn't match to a gun owner (legal or illegal), so they'll leave their firearm and caution in their cruiser. I really REALLY would pay to see that, because one of my friends is a cop from a big extended family of cops (and a few robbers...), and every cop I've ever talked to says that they're always on high alert during traffic stops. The only thing that seems to spook them more is a user of PCP, or the unpredictability of domestic violence calls.

I'm not a gun-rights nut, but I like to target-shoot. I also respect the right of others to do what I don't care too... and this pisses me off.

 

[nismaratwork]

Let's not forget that some people are more at risk than others, with NY and Washington leading the list of targets. Also, people who fly often might be at a greater risk than people who've never flown. Anyone who lives near a seaport might be more at risk than someone who lives near a midwest corn field.

Lets also not forget that you could rephrase that as, many people are at far less risk, given their daily activities, population density, and their region. Of course, I live in a coastal city that would be at risk, yet I don't worry about a tornado, "The Big One", or malaria, or... you get the idea.

In the end, as mug says, we need to recognize that we're not all about to die, but that doesn't mean we should sit around and consider 1 in X acceptable losses. It's just as he says, and you provide a good point as well: allocate funds in part according to the magnitude of risk experienced. I hope that's already done, but suspect every congressman wants a big ol' slice of that pie for their district.

 

[alt]

re bolded: Really, that's the beginning and end of it, but people are willing to cash in liberty for the illusion of security. They'll kill themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and unsafe driving, but the mere off-chance that bad men will strike somehow is paralyzing. It isn't that the threat isn't real or shouldn't be addressed, but our priorities are ****ed, and it leads to these fine patriots of the FBI and Christians In Action, etc... to snoop and feel justified. The irony is that it seems to so often come down to needing human intelligence to convince any higher up the line, that any of the sigint should be heeded.

We live in a warped world.

Indeed we do !

My father told me that during WWII, the catch cry was "you must sacrifice security for liberty" - a noble sentiment indeed.

But now it's "you must sacrifice liberty for security".

 

[alt]

Really? I'd think that if I had something to hide that would have impacted my decision to invite them to monitor me substantially.

Obviously, it isn't an "invasion" of privacy if I invite it.

And abuse of power? I suppose there is a finite chance of an abuse. I weighed that chance against my desire to help the fight against terrorism and my desire to help won. I suppose then you fear government abuse more than you fear terrorism? No, I emailed them. Um, well, yes - that was my reason for doing it!

I've read this whole thread through (I think), and I can't see your reason for emailing FBI and asking them to monitor you and your phone calls. You must admit, that's not normal behaviour. What was your reason ?

 

[Galteeth]

I've read this whole thread through (I think), and I can't see your reason for emailing FBI and asking them to monitor you and your phone calls. You must admit, that's not normal behaviour. What was your reason ?

Such an action is actually detrimental to the war on terrorism. By asking the FBI to monitor one's activities, they pretty much have to, since that is a red flag. But if one has "nothing to hide", then such a person is wasting government resources that could be put to better use.

 

[alt]

Such an action is actually detrimental to the war on terrorism. By asking the FBI to monitor one's activities, they pretty much have to, since that is a red flag. But if one has "nothing to hide", then such a person is wasting government resources that could be put to better use.

That, amongst other things, is primarily what I would have thought. Which is why I asked Russ for his reasons for doing so, since he put it on a forum that that's what he did.

 

[russ_watters]

I've read this whole thread through (I think), and I can't see your reason for emailing FBI and asking them to monitor you and your phone calls. You must admit, that's not normal behaviour. What was your reason ?

Did you read the post I linked where I explained exactly what happened?

 

[russ_watters]

Such an action is actually detrimental to the war on terrorism. By asking the FBI to monitor one's activities, they pretty much have to, since that is a red flag. But if one has "nothing to hide", then such a person is wasting government resources that could be put to better use.

That's illogical: If one has to be certain that the tip they have will bear fruit, then people would never give tips!

 

[russ_watters]

I dropped this thread a few days ago...

I think you've confused non-invasive oversight (seat-belt is the exception, and should be challenged) with invasion of privacy. Oversight is pulling cadmium laced cups, invasion of privacy is searching my home for them, or making owning them a crime rather than SELLING THEM.

Even non-invasive oversight can go too far, but at least we're on the same page about the issue of

That's irritating about any ideology you argue with, when you yourself are doing the same, bound by another ideology.

You misunderstand: what irritates me is the hypocrisy in the ideology I'm arguing against. You won't find such hypocrisy in my positions and you agreed (on the wikileaks issue) that it exists on your side - even if not with you specifically - of this issue.

Your life is an open book? Give me all of your personal information then, and I promise I'll use it to protect you, and not for any negative act. Trust me.

C'mon, you know that's not the issue here. The issue here is privacy from the government. The government already has my SSN, bank acount and some credit card numbers. If they want my pin # and email password too, they can have them.

So could you please explain why privacy is so important to you? Even for something as simple as tapping your phone: what do you think the government is going to do with that information that is so worrisome for you?

OK, Christians In Action is, I now see... a real Christian group... when did that happen?! It was once a derogatory way of referring to the Central Intelligence Agency within some military branches and subunits. That should clarify the hyperbole...

Lol, too funny - I had no idea.

As for the rest, no, I'm not suggesting anything at all. I said EXACTLY what I meant, meant what I said and stand by it. Yes, social programs are the far greater expenditure, but that's not to say that sigint and analysis doesn't cost a fortune as well.

You clearly stated a double-standard/contradiction in my views where one does not exist. If you didn't recognize why before, now you should.

What irritates me about this issue is that conservatives like to believe they somehow are the only ones who want to be safe, or have a nation that can defend its interests. Conservatives like to pretend to hold a broader view, when really it's just about picking pet issues and pretending that's an ideology.

[shrug] I think the common quoting of Ben Franklin by liberals shows where they stand on the issue ("He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."). Not to mention that one would complain about the $8 billion FBI budget as if it were as big a fiscal problem as the $750 billion Social Security. And then there is this thread!

You haven't answer the question that is the crux of the issue yet, so I'll ask it again at the end: what is it about privacy that makes you so concerned about it? Or to be more specific, why would you be concerned about the FBI tapping your phone (for example)? Everyone on your side of the issue seems to take privacy as a self-evident need without ever articulating what the issue actually is.

 

[russ_watters]

It depends a lot on your government, and I'd add, how well they secure that information. I will say this however: WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

Such as?

Let me clarify: We don't all have criminal or fundamentally terrible behaviour to hide, but we all WANT to hide some things.

Such as?

Ooh, finally some exmples coming...

Times change, but databses and dossiers remain... what you don't care to hide now you may want to in the future...

Unlikely, unless my beliefs change. Hiding something because I may change my beliefs in the future is not a good reason.

...or maybe you just don't want the FBI to know that you can't get it up without medication,

Really? I'm talking about letting the government have my email password and tap my phone so they can catch a terrorist and you think I might care if they know if I can get it up? And you want to claim that liberals care about security? C'mon.

...or that you were an addict in your teens because they take the anonymous out of *A.

Well, we already agreed that criminals would have something to hide - that wasn't the issue.

Maybe you're a perfectly good guy, but also gay, and you feel that's your business alone or worse, it later becomes something considered criminal (as it was once).

Again, being worried about something that doesn't exist - particularly on an issue where the country is getting more liberal - is not taking the issue seriously.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is not a reasonable once, as much as I respect you personally, this argument doesn't work.

It works for me and your examples say pretty clearly to me that personal embarassment and highly speculative future changes in how government works are more imopratant than security. I wonder if the workers in the Sears Tower would have cared about the FBI knowing they're impotent if asked the day after 9/11?

Does this whole issue come down to liberals not being comfortable in their own skin? That would be teriffically ironic for a group that almost by definition championed exactly that in the '60s!

NOTE: The examples I gave are all pulled from whole cloth, with none representing personal issues or anyone else's issues.

Lol - in the context of the thread, that's pretty funny.
[Disclaimer: I can get it up.]

 

[russ_watters]

you think this:

and this:

are unrelated?

If you think they are related, then explain.

now, a couple of things. we may disagree about what constitutes public and private.

Very, very unlikely. I know where people draw the lines. The difference is simply I've invited the government to cross that line.

if you pay attention to what is happening with police arresting people for taping them...

Cops are human and a lot of humans have a problem with being watched, as we see in this thread. It seems to me that when people don't know where the line is, they think it is further away. Please understand, that's not me: I know where the line is and invite the FBI to cross it.

...and modern data collection on ones daily activities, especially by government agencies, might also be considered invasive and an infringement on ones privacy. and what about my medical records? i consider that private information, even though it does end up in some company's database. should the government be allowed to purchase access to the for the purposes of profiling? the trouble is, we are in one of those areas again where the founders could not have foreseen the level of monitoring that is possible with new technology. somehow, i don't think they would approve.

Again, I know where the lines are currently drawn. My question is: why are you worried about the government crossing them?

 

[russ_watters]

People are so scared of the one in a (million? 10 million? more?) of being killed by a terrorist that they sell their liberties for the illusion of safety. It's pathetic.

1. You're not getting how terrorism works. 9/11 didn't just kill a bunch of people, it also did major damage to the economy. It didn't just affect one in a million, it affected everyone.
2. You're not understanding how...or I should say that security works. There's no illusion here, nismaratwork: it works. And it has worked over the past 9 years.
3. It's not about fear, it's about responsibility. The government has the responsibility to protect it's citizens. And that sometimes means making a lot more effort to make us a little safer. The same logic applies to airplane safety. Saving those last few lives takes a lot of effort and costs a lot of money.

 

[JaredJames]

So could you please explain why privacy is so important to you? Even for something as simple as tapping your phone: what do you think the government is going to do with that information that is so worrisome for you?

When discussing the UK ID cards with some anti-ID nuts they kept giving one argument over and over - the government could use the information to frame you for something.

A load of BS. Let's face it, if the government wanted to frame you for something, the last thing they'd need is the ID cards (or whatever it is they're using to monitor you).

(I'm not saying it's the same reason people here hold.)

 

[russ_watters]

When discussing the UK ID cards with some anti-ID nuts they kept giving one argument over and over - the government could use the information to frame you for something.

A load of BS. Let's face it, if the government wanted to frame you for something, the last thing they'd need is the ID cards (or whatever it is they're using to monitor you).

(I'm not saying it's the same reason people here hold.)

I've always gotten the impression that fear of government spying was a nebulous/vague/undefined fear.

 

[JaredJames]

I've always gotten the impression that fear of government spying was a nebulous/vague/undefined fear.

I'll second that.

To fear the government, is to fear the people you put into power. I'm yet to hear a coherent argument that doesn't involve some form of fear mongering.

 

[nismaratwork]

Such as? Such as?

Ooh, finally some exmples coming...
Unlikely, unless my beliefs change. Hiding something because I may change my beliefs in the future is not a good reason. Really? I'm talking about letting the government have my email password and tap my phone so they can catch a terrorist and you think I might care if they know if I can get it up? And you want to claim that liberals care about security? C'mon.
Well, we already agreed that criminals would have something to hide - that wasn't the issue. Again, being worried about something that doesn't exist - particularly on an issue where the country is getting more liberal - is not taking the issue seriously. It works for me and your examples say pretty clearly to me that personal embarassment and highly speculative future changes in how government works are more imopratant than security. I wonder if the workers in the Sears Tower would have cared about the FBI knowing they're impotent if asked the day after 9/11?

Does this whole issue come down to liberals not being comfortable in their own skin? That would be teriffically ironic for a group that almost by definition championed exactly that in the '60s!

Lol - in the context of the thread, that's pretty funny.
[Disclaimer: I can get it up.]

Well, I'm not going to be cute and pretend that I want to share things I want to hide... it makes me get a small nosebleed just going down that logical spiral. As for the magnitude of the FBI budget, I have no problem with it... 8 billion... it's a big country with a lot of enemies foreign and domestic.

Now, I'm going to admit my own ideology here... I have NO logical argument to offer against your protests that the country is:

1.) Unlikely to radically change in a manner that renders my personal info dangerous.

I don't believe that your personal info can't be used in a "bad way" once archived however. You're right that the government CAN crack nearly every security measure I know of (they're welcome to wait until the universe becomes diffuse radiation to crack anything I've encrypted) and if they want to read my unsecured emails, they can.

The thing is Russ, email, phone conversations... tapping sounds so negative, you know what I mean? I think you'd say it's a very specific act that liberals use as a broad brush to paint all sigint. A tap to me, means that SOMEONE is listening on the other end, but when we talk about the NSA or FBI 'tapping' our communications, it's mostly computers doing the work. I don't care if every cent of my communications are filtered for flagged words and phrases, names, and then someone reviews those conversations. Even though, on its surface monitoring communications SEEMS invasive, in practice most people never have a human reading or listening to their banal crap.

So, here we have the chance that the next major terrorist attack will be planned over unsecured lines, or we keep getting lucky and our idiot enemies will fail to light their crotches and shoes properly. I'm sorry Russ, I realize that 9.11 was horrendous in terms of its human and economic impact, but you're not going to tell me that it compares to, again, entitlement programs, or the amount spent (read, for me, wasted) in Iraq... it's the end of the world.

We can't bet our economy on the hope of perfect security, which is impossible... rather we need to reasonably address the GAPING issues that led to 9.11, improve security... and then do what we can so that our economy can withstand attack.


NOW... if our government (USA to be clear) had a better track record with keeping their secrets SECRET... I'd feel differently. I KNOW people who don't steal, but waltz through that kind of personal information... and while there's no appreciable harm done, there could be. Has Pfc. Manning taught us nothing? I didn't expect a giant outcry of, "hell yeah I've got **** to hide," but if anyone here doesn't have something to hide (or THINKS they do), you're not human. You can argue that security is worth more than privacy, but that's not the real argument either.

Security which is of questionable benefit, (you can sound certain about 9 years of safety, but you don't know all of the causes) vs. privacy which is of questionable benefit. I don't know Russ... I prefer some of both, and I don't have a hard and fast rule as to what the right balance is. Right now, I feel like we've got it about right, but we're only ever some madman with a bomb, or a **** like Manning or Assange away from having the dirty laundry we're confident is ours alone being public.


An example if you'll humour me... Airlines... They have their back-scatter X-Ray scanners now, and I think we can all agree that assuming (and I do) that they're safe and effective, that's an acceptable sacrifice. I don't care if someone I'll never meet in a room somewhere in the airport sees my package, or that I'm sucking in my stomach a little. HOWEVER... when the first blurry non-porn of someone's kid is released because a TSA agent snuck in a camera to snap some shots of the screen they're watching, the public will BURN those machines. I think a few people, even kids being embarrassed in that way is worth avoiding another 9.11, but WOW do I find that taking such a position tends to endc is a screaming match. I don't WANT that to happen, but you get the idea...

note... the disclaimer wasn't referring to me lol... I just didn't want to insult someone inadvertently. Your potence is a throbbing tumescence in the online universe Russ, don't worry, but in the spirit of the thread how about sharing a picture of your erect penis as proof? Actually, I don't want to see that... let's instead go to court... you go to a federal judge and become aroused. I'll take the judge's word that you're able to achieve an erection without chemical aid, and you've only exposed yourself to the kind of government that could be looking at your info. If you're the kind of guy who says, "to hell with that", whips it out and shows us all how it works... I applaud you. I'm not that guy, and maybe it's because I'm worried that you have an inch on me, but I don't mind that kind of thing to be perfectly... frank. Anyway, I really believe that people have a right to privacy FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT, and if sacrificing some of that can't stop guys with PETN in their crotch, maybe it's better not to make that sacrifice at all.


P.S. CIA... It is funny isn't it? My brother was in Laos around the time that phrase came into being. He used to say they'd get to a given rendezvous point and be miles off because the intel was bad... "Christians In Action strikes again!," was the refrain... edited for the profanity you'd expect for soldiers in a jungle. The things they said about ARVN... now that was genuinely wrong!

 

[alt]

Did you read the post I linked where I explained exactly what happened?

If you mean the link in post #17 on this thread, I have read it now, and now understand your reasons.