Is Government Surveillance Overreaching Privacy Boundaries?

[The_Professional]

"...the essence of the evil government is that it anticipates bad conduct on the part of its citizens. Any government which assumes that
the population is going to do something evil has already lost its franchise to govern. The tacit contract between a government and the people governed is that the government will trust the people and the people will trust the government.
But once the government begins to mistrust the people it is governing, it loses its mandate to rule because it is no longer acting as a spokesman for the people, but is acting as an agent of persecution." - Philip K. Dick

I was reading this article and I was reminded of the quote above.

Now my question is: Has the government overstepped it's boundaries when it comes to our privacy? Where do we draw the line? How do we prevent the government from abusing this power? Is gov. regulation a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Humm considering that the "Right to Govern" is meant to be based upon 'majority vote', how many people voted in the last US election?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm considering that the "Right to Govern" is meant to be based upon 'majority vote', how many people voted in the last US election?

You have to quotes in your post - please show me where these come from.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phatmonky
You have to quotes in your post - please show me where these come from.

One "Quote" which is simply to open definition (I am not defining that word, I leave the 'context' of it's "meaning" to you) and the second is semi quotation, less 'room to move' in your contextualization as reader...does that help?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
One "Quote" which is simply to open defintion (I am not defining that word, I leave the 'context' of it's "meaning" to you) and the second is semi quotation, less 'room to move' in your contextualization as reader...does that help?

Sort of - I just don't hold your statement as truth, and was wondering where it came from.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Sort of - I just don't hold your statement as truth, and was wondering where it came from.

Please note, at the end of my "Statement" the "question mark"... the ideas of the "Principals of good government" is where it comes from...

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by The_Professional
I was reading this article and I was reminded of the quote above.

Now my question is: Has the government overstepped it's boundaries when it comes to our privacy? Where do we draw the line? How do we prevent the government from abusing this power? Is gov. regulation a good thing or a bad thing?

No. This is not an advocation for complete monitoring of all internet conversations. Provided the same criteria are required as for phone taps, it is just fine.

The trust necessary between government people does not extend to those who give probable cause, as determined by a judge, that they are commiting crimes which can be detected through the monitoring of their communications. In short, those individuals who give reason not to be trusted, should not be trusted.

Now, if all citizens give reasons to not be trusted, or the government simply decides not to trust citizens as a matter of course, the government has broken down. I do not think that is the case here.

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

Outside of national security cases, wire taps have to to be justified by a warrant, obtained from a judge. There's no indication of anything like that in this "monitoring".

Unrestricted snooping is dangerous because it's the government that decides who's suspicious, and the people have no input. Nixon wanted to wiretap the Democratic headquarters.

One of the problems with the Patriot Act is it does away with judicial review in many cases. This is likely to be found unconstitutional when the Supreme Court reviews the act, as it has agreed to do.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Please note, at the end of my "Statement" the "question mark"... the ideas of the "Principals of good government" is where it comes from...

Let me make this simple for you. Your POST was a STATEMENT then a QUESTION with incorrect punctuation.

So, continuing on about your STATEMENT of "considering that the "Right to Govern" is meant to be based upon 'majority vote'", I wanted to know where this came from.

The RIGHT TO GOVERN is meant to be based upon MAJORITY VOTE? Besides you, who says this? A book? Another public source?

The right to govern in our country is based upon different things at different levels of government. The Presidency, for instance, is based upon the decision of electoral college, not the majority vote.

So, my point is that your post is based upon a false statement that has to be held true for your post to mean anything.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint


One of the problems with the Patriot Act is it does away with judicial review in many cases. This is likely to be found unconstitutional when the Supreme Court reviews the act, as it has agreed to do.

Why is it that every other court that has reviewed cases about the act have said it is constitutional?? Why is it LIKELY?

 

[Andy]

The Presidency, for instance, is based upon the decision of electoral college, not the majority vote.

So gaining the most votes in a general election stands for nothing?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Let me make this simple for you. Please, do![/color] Your POST was a STATEMENT then a QUESTION with incorrect punctuation. Hows about "a statement that leads to the question", as in "given that x = 3 what is the value of x²"...this form of conversation escapes you?? or what?? [/color]
So, continuing on about your STATEMENT of "considering that the "Right to Govern" is meant to be based upon 'majority vote'", I wanted to know where this came from. DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS! you do know what those are (<-Thats the statement, this is the question ->) don't you?[/color]
The RIGHT TO GOVERN is meant to be based upon MAJORITY VOTE? Besides you, who says this? A book? Another public source? See above...[/color]
The right to govern in our country is based upon different things at different levels of government. The Presidency, for instance, is based upon the decision of electoral college, not the majority vote.
Very good dodge'm the electoral college's choice IS dictated by MAJORITY VOTE![/color]
So, my point is that your post is based upon a false statement that has to be held true for your post to mean anything. And this statement of yours, a fine example of how "What you see in others is really simply the truth that arises from within YOU!"...(that is a quotation!...of someone named Dave!)[/color]

O.K.?

 

[Andy]

I think the pennie might drop after that last post, but to cut a long post short, i am right arent i? there is nothing else to it, if u can gain more votes than your competitors u win? simple isn't it?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Andy
So gaining the most votes in a general election stands for nothing?

In the last American Election Al Gore had the popular vote (Majority of voters) just that, to be able to balance out rural, and urban, power divisions, in political activities (respective of the population numbers) there needs be a sort of balancing act that occurs, see electoral colleges of the United States of America.

If it doesn't get a 'balancing act' applied to it, then all "politics" would be generated from the places with the most populace, (urban centers) and the rural areas would suffer (even greater) demise. It is to facilitate balanced representation Otherwise the politicians themselves would simply ignore the rural areas, or the low population areas, in favor of the higher population areas thereby generating an imbalance, and a predjudice/bias in representation...not a good thing.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
1>Hows about "a statement that leads to the question", as in "given that x = 3 what is the value of x2"...this form of conversation escapes you?? or what??

2> DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS! you do know what those are (<-Thats the statement, this is the question -> ) don't you?



3>See above...

4> And this statement of yours, a fine example of how "What you see in others is really simply the truth that arises from within YOU!"...(that is a quotation!...of someone named Dave!)

Try not typing in the quote area next time, if you want to continue this conversation


1>It doesn't escape me at all. In fact, I had replied at first with a question to you, but you felt it necessary to add quotes to your whole reply, and point out the question mark. The point is, your statement is false. Being that it is false (as in, saying x=3 when it does not), we know what happened in the last election was normal, and I still don't understand your point of mentioning it.

2>We live in a represenative republic sir. A full democracy is akin to mob rule.
3> Still seeing. Still disagreeing with your statement.
4> No, that statement is a perfect explanation of what your post was.

I'm done with this. Oddly, after your post, you give conflicting information concering our electoral system. You fully understand the end result, you even understand that the majority vote only indirectly influences the election, yet you still say the right to govern is meant to be based upon majority vote (even after supporting the electoral college in that same post).

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Why is it that every other court that has reviewed cases about the act have said it is constitutional?? Why is it LIKELY?

They didn't. There is a division in the circuits. One court said it couldn't be implemented because it is unconstitutional. But they stayed their order pending Supreme Court review. Another circuit court said it was OK. This is why the Supreme Court is going to review it; that is one of its functions, to resolve differences in the lower courts. It's always foolish to try to outguess the nine justices, but some knowledgeable people think that the court will want to protect judicial review, otherwise there is no "checks and balances" on the executive branch's power to decare any individual to be a terrorist and to punish him without a trial.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Try not typing in the quote area next time, if you want to continue this conversation Try Freedom as in mine! next time? HUH?[/color]
1>It doesn't escape me at all. In fact, I had replied at first with a question to you, but you felt it necessary to add quotes to your whole reply, and point out the question mark. The point is, your statement is false. Being that it is false (as in, saying x=3 when it does not), we know what happened in the last election was normal, and I still don't understand your point of mentioning it.
It is not false as a Principal of Democracy, not at all...[/color]
2>We live in a represenative republic sir. A full democracy is akin to mob rule. Hence the use of an Electoral college to attempt to impede that from forming[/color]
3> Still seeing. Still disagreeing with your statement. Good for you[/color]
4> No, that statement is a perfect explanation of what your post was. According to you, AKA "your opinion"[/color]

I'm done with this. Oddly, after your post, you give conflicting information concering our electoral system. And your example of this? demonstrative of that?...is where?[/color] You fully understand the end result, you even understand that the majority vote only indirectly influences the election, yet you still say the right to govern is meant to be based upon majority vote (even after supporting the electoral college in that same post).NO, if you have a landslide of voters all for only one candidate, you will see what you are missing...Thanks, BYE...[/color]

If any of you have a problem with my insertions[/color] please learn to copy/paste, you are, after all, using one of the worlds most efficient and in-expensive copieing machines, there, right in front of you...Thank you...

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Outside of national security cases, wire taps have to to be justified by a warrant, obtained from a judge. There's no indication of anything like that in this "monitoring".

Unrestricted snooping is dangerous because it's the government that decides who's suspicious, and the people have no input. Nixon wanted to wiretap the Democratic headquarters.

One of the problems with the Patriot Act is it does away with judicial review in many cases. This is likely to be found unconstitutional when the Supreme Court reviews the act, as it has agreed to do.

Nothing in the link, or the story from which that link originated indicates that the restrictions will be any less than those required for phone taps.

from http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040108.gtvoip0108/BNStory/Technology/

The FBI and the U.S. Justice Department have renewed their efforts to wiretap voice conversations carried across the Internet.

The agencies have asked the Federal Communications Commission to order companies offering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to rewire their networks to guarantee police the ability to eavesdrop on subscribers' conversations.

Without such mandatory rules, the two agencies predicted in a letter to the FCC last month that "criminals, terrorists, and spies (could) use VoIP services to avoid lawfully authorized surveillance." The letter also was signed by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

emphasis added

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

And it all comes down to what they mean by "lawfully'. Since they are talking (at least partly) about terrorists, the laws that apply are the Patriot Act and its stealth companion Patriot II. These in many cases of accused terrorism do not require any judicial review at all.