News Illegal use of surveillance systems

[Bally]

I'm sorry. I have no intention of committing a crime. I was referring to the government's use of illegal surveillance of private citizens without their consent for no reason. They monitor your apartment/home, car, and workplace whether you know it or not. They don't monitor everyone, but they are easily capable of it at any given time -- in this state at least. It is a crime against the people.

 

[D H]

I hear a properly fitted tinfoil hat makes it harder for the government to read your mind.

 

[stewartcs]

I hear a properly fitted tinfoil hat makes it harder for the government to read your mind.

It's true, I'm wearing one right now.

CS

 

[D H]

Wow! I can't sense a thing!

 

[stewartcs]

I'm sorry. I have no intention of committing a crime. I was referring to the government's use of illegal surveillance of private citizens without their consent for no reason. They monitor your apartment/home, car, and workplace whether you know it or not. They don't monitor everyone, but they are easily capable of it at any given time -- in this state at least. It is a crime against the people.

Do you really think it is for no reason? Although I enjoy my privacy, if the government needs to survey dubious persons in order to maintain a peaceful society, then I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

How much sense would it make to tell the people "hey, we're watching you and listening in on your conversations...so if you are doing anything illegal we will catch you!"? It would kind of defeat the purpose of listening in.

If you are not doing anything illegal, then they wouldn't waste their resources on your daily activities, and why would you even care?

One must look at the trade off between the two and determine what is more beneficial overall - privacy or national security to keep citizens safe.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

CS

 

[arildno]

It is a crime against the people.

How is it a crime?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm sorry. I have no intention of committing a crime. I was referring to the government's use of illegal surveillance of private citizens without their consent for no reason. They monitor your apartment/home, car, and workplace whether you know it or not. They don't monitor everyone, but they are easily capable of it at any given time -- in this state at least. It is a crime against the people.

It is certainly necessary and prudent for law enforcement and/or the government to monitor certain people and activities. What is important here is that we have a system of checks and balances - oversight - to prevent the abuse of this power. The problem of late is not only that Bush et al have tried to bypass the requirement for oversight, but also that through fear and ignorance, many people have lost sight of the critical role of checks and balances in our system of government. In turn, the very notion of a free society, and all that we have tried to be is in jeopardy.

 

[edward]

What has been happening in recent years is a good example of mission creep. The Federal government is involved in a program supposedly designed to trace everything about everyone. Most of this activity is contracted out to Choicepoint who in turn sub contracts parts of the program out to other companies.

Originally part of credit bureau Equifax, ChoicePoint became a separate publicly traded company in 1997. In the beginning ChoicePoint sold personal data and data software to the insurance industry, but it now also sells information to employers, marketers, the federal government and local and state law enforcement agencies.

http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/02/08/choicepoint_still_on_the_road

This would be Ok if it was guaranteed and proven to work. They claim to be able to find the proverbial needle in a haystack. The way I see it they are just making the haystack so big it will become useless.

Law enforcemt agencies typically buy your information from private comapnies. The data bases purchased from companies such as Entersect and Choice Point contain a lot of incorrect information.

The purchased data comes with the caveat that the information is not verified and confirmed to be true and accurate. Police departments don't bother to verify anything, at least in my area.

I had a friend who is a detective for my local Sheriffs Department run my local police record. They missed one traffic citation from a few years back and had my ex daughter in law listed as my current wife.

The odd thing is that there is no way to get incorrect information removed.

BTW they also have your browsing habits. If anyone has been to a right wing, left wing, pro war, anti war, or even an adult entertainment web site. They have that information in a computer at your local police station.

 

[edward]

"Originally posted by stewartcs

How much sense would it make to tell the people "hey, we're watching you and listening in on your conversations...so if you are doing anything illegal we will catch you!"? It would kind of defeat the purpose of listening in.

The purpose of listening in has already been defeated. The surveillance done by the government has been very obvious. Most people especially the bad guys already know that they are being watched.

 

[russ_watters]

About a year ago, I digitized and emailed to the FBI a series of voicemails left for me that originated from Jordan. I never heard from them, but it is possible my phone is now being tapped. I certainly don't mind if it is and would be disappointed if they didn't at least listen to and translate the messages.

My guess would be that the caller was just trying to track down a relative, but at the very least, the person was a deadbeat - I got calls from his creditors for months after getting the phone line.

Now in my particular case, the calls originated from a country with known ties to terrorism. It's even possible the FBI had already been tapping me when I sent them the email. I see no legal or ethical reason why they shouldn't be allowed to tap these calls without my knowledge. A judge still needs to be the one issuing the order, but the FISA court is completely sealed-off from public view and I'm ok with that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A judge still needs to be the one issuing the order, but the FISA court is completely sealed-off from public view and I'm ok with that.

I don't know of anyone who argues that the surveillance of potential threats should be public information. But I do take issue with retroactive review - that is not oversight. And unless the source of your call came from a person of interest, there is no justification to tap your line.

You may not have a problem with this, but frankly I don't recognize your right to support laws that violate my Constitutional rights; even if they are only violated in principle.

...to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.