News Then NSA secret wire tapping is legal(no i in front of that)

[scott1]

Then NSA secret wire tapping is legal(no "i" in front of that)

(a) Duty to Provide.— A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

(c) Prohibition of Certain Disclosure.— No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002709----000-.html"
So it's legel. I was ok with the secert wire tapping in the first place I wasn't to consireded about the NSA wiretapping my phone lines(since I'am not terroist).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002709----000-.html"
So it's legel. I was ok with the secert wire tapping in the first place I wasn't to consireded about the NSA wiretapping my phone lines(since I'am not terroist).

Well, this is talking about records and not wire tapping; it is talking about the FBI and not the NSA; and it refers to one person with a name, not hundreds of millions without names.

From your link:

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may—

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

[scott1]

Well I was being secert wire tapping. I'am not that paranoid when I first herd about the secert wire tapping I thought it was some conspriacy theorsit that some how got on the news and the media was exploiting it to make bush look bad....But wait the NSA does not have enough agents and money to secert wire tap on all of us so they can only do terroist.

(Moderator note: this post has been modified to remove reference to deleted posts.)[/color]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well I was being secert wire tapping. I'am not that paranoid when I first herd about the secert wire tapping I thought it was some conspriacy theorsit
that some how got on the news and the media was exploiting it to make bush look bad.

Manchot's post should not have been directed at you personally.

Protection of our civil liberties is not an issue for conspiracy theorists. It is why we have fought wars.

Do you understand the difference between the NSA and the FBI?

 

[scott1]

Do you understand the difference between the NSA and the FBI, and why did you choose to ignore that obvious conflict with your post?

No of cource not. But look at this

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may—

Rember Bush was the person to give the orders for the wire tapping and the president is in hire postiont then FBI director. But for the NSA doing I'am not to sure about that.

 

[russ_watters]

You took an oath to protect - to guard with your life if needed -the Constitution. Oh well.

Neither you, nor Manchot understands my position. I'm a big fan of the Constitution, a big fan of freedom/liberty, and a big fan of Democracy, but freedom and privacy are not the same thing, and there is a good reason there is no specific right to privacy laid out in the Bill of Rights.

[The thread was pruned to remove inappropriate comments, so I'll slip a leftover from a deleted post of mine here:] I will also gladly give the government whatever information they want to know about me if they think it'll help them catch terrorists. To add one more thing, I consider this to be along the same lines as voluntary fingerprinting or DNA testing - ie, sometimes police will ask people to submit information in order to eliminate them from suspicion. Say if a crime is committed in my office and it looks like an inside job, I'd gladly give a fingerprint in order to allow the police to narrow the pool of potential suspects.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, and do you think any information about YOU (or millons of inocent americans) will help the government to catch a "Terrorist" ??

It might, and the information we are talking about sharing is so innocuous, there is no good reason for me not to share it if it might help. Privacy for privacy's sake is not an explanation. Heck, it is tough to even argue that privacy itself is being violated, considering no human will ever lay eyes on my phone records under this program. In any case, where in the definition of "liberty" does it say anything about privacy?:

The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty

Freedom/liberty is about [lack of] control, not information. "1984" had government watching everything the people did, but that wasn't the point of the book: the point was that they were watching for the purpose of control.

I've probably asked before, but Ivan - do you object because you want privacy for privacy's sake, or are you concerned that the government might use this information to harm you in some way? If it is the latter, doesn't it matter what the information is to be used for and if it is even possible to use it for control?

Quite frankly, I think people who get up in arms about this sort of thing do so because they misunderstand the concept of freedom/liberty.

 

[Art]

Quite frankly, I think people who get up in arms about this sort of thing do so because they misunderstand the concept of freedom/liberty.

Supreme court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right and is protected by the 9th amendment.

They have also found it to be inherent in the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments.

BTW one thing not covered by the constitution is Executive Privilege, which presidents are so fond of using; in fact the Supreme Court, in U.S. v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), recognized that there exists a need for some secrecy in the executive branch, but that the secrecy cannot be absolute.

 

[russ_watters]

Supreme court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right and is protected by the 9th amendment.

Right to privacy is thin and subject to a lot of interpretation - made all the more difficult by the fact (as you noted), that it is not specifically delineated in the Constitution, but was established via precedent by the courts. As a result, there is a lot of case-by-case interpretation required.

For example, in this case, I'd like to know how the 4th or 5th Amendments could apply: there was no search nor siezure - the information was provided voluntarily by the owner of the information. (remember: just because information is about you, doesn't automatically mean it belongs to you. Indeed, it often does not)

This is covered in other threads, but I probably should throw in the caveat that regardless of coverage in the Constitution, there could still be a law about it, and I'm not at all clear on whether there are applicable laws/how the law applies.

 

[Burnsys]

It might, and the information we are talking about sharing is so innocuous, there is no good reason for me not to share it if it might help. Privacy for privacy's sake is not an explanation. Heck, it is tough to even argue that privacy itself is being violated, considering no human will ever lay eyes on my phone records under this program. In any case, where in the definition of "liberty" does it say anything about privacy?: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty

Freedom/liberty is about [lack of] control, not information. "1984" had government watching everything the people did, but that wasn't the point of the book: the point was that they were watching for the purpose of control.

I've probably asked before, but Ivan - do you object because you want privacy for privacy's sake, or are you concerned that the government might use this information to harm you in some way? If it is the latter, doesn't it matter what the information is to be used for and if it is even possible to use it for control?

Quite frankly, I think people who get up in arms about this sort of thing do so because they misunderstand the concept of freedom/liberty.

Yes and who deleted my post and why? it's easy to reply to 2 lines of what i wrote and delete the rest 15 lines...

 

[Art]

Right to privacy is thin and subject to a lot of interpretation - made all the more difficult by the fact (as you noted), that it is not delineated in the Constitution, but was established via precedent by the courts. As a result, there is a lot of case-by-case interpretation required.

For example, in this case, I'd like to know how the 4th or 5th Amendments could apply: there was no search nor siezure - the information was provided voluntarily by the owner of the information. (remember: just because information is about you, doesn't automatically mean it belongs to you. Indeed, it often does not)

This is covered in other threads, but I probably should throw in the caveat that regardless of coverage in the Constitution, there could still be a law about it, and I'm not at all clear on whether there are applicable laws/how the law applies.

In this case the 9th amendment applies!

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

One of these rights has been determined by the supreme court to be the 'right to privacy'.

And so Ivan is correct. Failure to uphold the right to privacy is a failure to uphold the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court who are the ultimate arbiters.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's another aspect to this whole thing that is being missed here. I don't care that the NSA has my phone records. I do however, find it clearly in violation of (at the very least, the spirit of) the Constitution, that there can be executive programs that are beyond Judicial (and Congressional) oversight. Russ, are you okay with that ?

 

[russ_watters]

We've had the right-to-privacy discussion before, but maybe now would be a good time for a rehash (if you don't want it in your thread, scott1, I can split it...).

I actually didn't realize how new the right to privacy was: 1965! in a case about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut" .

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[1], was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy."

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy," Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

But the decision was not unanamous, and the justification not clear-cut:

Justices Potter Stewart and Hugo Black dissented, denying the existence of any constitutional provisions protecting the "right of privacy," and fearing the consequences of a departure from the Constitution's text. Both justices noted that the "right of privacy" had generally been held to inhere in the Fourth Amendment (and was thus limited textually to the language of that amendment), not the Bill of Rights generally. Stewart wrote:

In the course of its opinion, the Court refers to no less than six amendments to the constitution: the first, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the ninth and the fourteenth. But the court does not say which of these Amendments, if any, it thinks are infringed by this law.

Anyway, that line of court decisions were mostly about sexual/marital privacy: about things that happen in your home or between doctor and patient. Because of the inherrently private nature of the actions, the right to privacy there makes logical sense. Indeed, some of the laws struck down were unenforceable at face value, since there was no way for anyone to ever know if they were violated (ie, sodomy laws).

 

[Burnsys]

I will write it againt and i will make a backup just in case...

How many Terrorist could be in the eeuu?? 10? 100? 1000!? of 350 millons?
Is this "Spying on all inocen civilians" program any good at "Finding terrorist"?
What would i do if i am a terrorist, i would comunicate (terrorist related comunications) only by public internet access like public internet wifi access points sendind coded messages. And the whole program become useless you can only catch a retarded terrorist who makes call using his house phone conected to at&t and tell his friend, hey, tomorrow we will nuke New York!
The point is that the spying program is nothing more that a step further into controling the entire population becouse it's completely useless at finding terrorists.
Edit: and spying for spying sake is not an explanation.

 

[Gokul43201]

For example, in this case, I'd like to know how the 4th or 5th Amendments could apply: there was no search nor siezure - the information was provided voluntarily by the owner of the information.

This thread is about the wiretaps (going by the title), not about the datamining. Or at least, it should be...else it's gone off-topic.

 

[Burnsys]

Quite frankly, I think people who get up in arms about this sort of thing do so because they misunderstand the concept of freedom/liberty.

You are wrong, it's becouse we fear the government and becouse we have a lot of reasons to believe the government is becoming more and more corrupt.

 

[Burnsys]

Pure speculation post:

What i think they are doing is building a big database of relationships of the entire population, who talks with who, at what level, and how frequent, later analyzing each people reading habits, internet sites, shopping habits, guns in possession etc etc, each people will be asigned a "Suspect Terrorist Level" and automaticaly each of their "Most Related people" will gain a point. if you are over X you are an enemy combatant, you are held prisoner without trial and interrogated.
I imagine this becouse we had a dictatorship over here and this would have been their dream...

 

[Art]

We've had the right-to-privacy discussion before, but maybe now would be a good time for a rehash (if you don't want it in your thread, scott1, I can split it...).

I actually didn't realize how new the right to privacy was: 1965! in a case about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut" .

Good to see you acknowledge privacy is a right.

But the decision was not unanamous, and the justification not clear-cut:

Whether a majority or unanimous decision is irrelevant the decision stands. FYI It was further strengthened in the 'Loving Case' and 'Roe v Wade'.

Anyway, that line of court decisions were mostly about sexual/marital privacy: about things that happen in your home or between doctor and patient. Because of the inherrently private nature of the actions, the right to privacy there makes logical sense. Indeed, some of the laws struck down were unenforceable at face value, since there was no way for anyone to ever know if they were violated (ie, sodomy laws).

You miss the point, the actual details surrounding each case is irrelevent. The supreme court decisions were based on legal principles and their interpretation of the constitution. And their opinion is the only one that matters as they have the final say.

 

[russ_watters]

In this case the 9th amendment applies! One of these rights has been determined by the supreme court to be the 'right to privacy'.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still need to be clarified. All rights have cases where they apply and where they don't, and that USSC decision does not address all possible cases.

And so Ivan is correct. Failure to uphold the right to privacy is a failure to uphold the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court who are the ultimate arbiters.

Also fine, but the "right to privacy" isn't as clear as you are implying that it is. There is a lot of interpretation that has not been done yet. It is not well defined.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread is about the wiretaps (going by the title), not about the datamining. Or at least, it should be...else it's gone off-topic.

Ehh, crap. I crossed issues - I thought this thread wa an offshoot of one of the other ones on the phone records isue. Just so everyone is clear, I have been talking about the releasing of calling records, not the wiretapping thing. This whole thread may then be moot...

 

[Art]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still need to be clarified. All rights have cases where they apply and where they don't, and that USSC decision does not address all possible cases. Also fine, but the "right to privacy" isn't as clear as you are implying that it is. There is a lot of interpretation that has not been done yet. It is not well defined.

Ah! but the presumption is the rights do apply until found otherwise by the courts. Ref the 9th amendment. To presume otherwise is to contravene the constitution.

 

[Art]

Ehh, crap. I crossed issues - I thought this thread wa an offshoot of one of the other ones on the phone records isue. Just so everyone is clear, I have been talking about the releasing of calling records, not the wiretapping thing. This whole thread may then be moot...

The right to privacy is equally applicable in both cases.

 

[russ_watters]

There's another aspect to this whole thing that is being missed here. I don't care that the NSA has my phone records. I do however, find it clearly in violation of (at the very least, the spirit of) the Constitution, that there can be executive programs that are beyond Judicial (and Congressional) oversight. Russ, are you okay with that ?

I'm actually not sure about that. There is no such thing as not having oversight (the whole agency has it, even if specific programs don't), its the level of oversight that makes the difference.

 

[russ_watters]

Whether a majority or unanimous decision is irrelevant the decision stands.

My point is the fact that it was not a unanamous decision implies that the issue is not clear-cut and related cases could go either way.

You miss the point, the actual details surrounding each case is irrelevent.

No, the details are essential. This is not an omnibus ruling - it is one specific case of a very complex issue.

 

[russ_watters]

The right to privacy is equally applicable in both cases. [calling records vs wiretapping]

No, it most certainly is not. Calling records are collected in the normal course of business, whereas the content of the calls is not. So whether released to the government (or sold to marketteers, for that matter), or not, calling records are not ever completely private, whereas the content of the phone call is, unless something happens (like a warrant) to change that.

I see the calling records issue as being very similar to the data collected by retailers for targeted marketing (both in stores and on the internet). There are laws regarding such things (which is why we have other threads open right now where people are wading through the applicable laws). It is because since such information isn't private to begin with that laws have been passed to specifically limit what can be done with it. That's the whole reason the Privacy Act needs to exist.

 

[russ_watters]

To further clarify:

I will also gladly give the government whatever information they want to know about me if they think it'll help them catch terrorists.

When I said that, I had misread the title/OP and thought he was just referring to calling records. But even if we expand that to the government wanting to tap my phone line, I'd be ok with it.

 

[Art]

My point is the fact that it was not a unanamous decision implies that the issue is not clear-cut and related cases could go either way.

But as per the examples I provided subsequent cases haven't gone the other way.

No, the details are essential. This is not an omnibus ruling - it is one specific case of a very complex issue.

Russ you are simply wrong on this. The details are simply the facts. Arguments about facts do not find their way to the supreme court. The USSC rules on matters of law.

The key to understanding the meaning and scope of USSC judgements is in the ratio decidendi of decisions passed down by the supreme court and to a lesser extent what is said obiter dicta in their written opinion.

 

[russ_watters]

You are wrong, it's becouse we fear the government and becouse we have a lot of reasons to believe the government is becoming more and more corrupt.

[separate post] Pure speculation post:

What i think they are doing is building a big database of relationships of the entire population, who talks with who, at what level, and how frequent, later analyzing each people reading habits, internet sites, shopping habits, guns in possession etc etc, each people will be asigned a "Suspect Terrorist Level" and automaticaly each of their "Most Related people" will gain a point. if you are over X you are an enemy combatant, you are held prisoner without trial and interrogated.
I imagine this becouse we had a dictatorship over here and this would have been their dream...

Well, that's why I asked the question of whether it is privacy for the sake of privacy or fear of government corruption is the isue to you. It would appear that you equate the two. Isn't it possible to separate them?

 

[russ_watters]

Ah! but the presumption is the rights do apply until found otherwise by the courts. Ref the 9th amendment. To presume otherwise is to contravene the constitution.

No, Art, the USSC operates via negation. It doesn't write new laws and set limits on rights, it only strikes down laws and expands rights. Laws already in place that cover different issues and new laws that seek to clarify the ruling must be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Heck, if what you were saying was true, Row V Wade would not have needed to go before the USSC, but it did because the scope and applicability of the previous ruling was not clear in how abortion would be covered.

 

[Evo]

To further clarify: When I said that, I had misread the title/OP and thought he was just referring to calling records. But even if we expand that to the government wanting to tap my phone line, I'd be ok with it.

Actually Scott's post references the call records, so either issue is on topic.

 

[russ_watters]

But as per the examples I provided subsequent cases haven't gone the other way.

So what? Subsequent cases have also been very limited in scope. And by the way, subsequent cases (including Row v Wade) have put some limits on the right to privacy.

While establishing the right to an abortion, this decision gave states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy to protect the woman and the “potential” life of the unborn child...

In a 1989 case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the court, while not striking down Roe, limited its scope, permitting states greater latitude in regulating and restricting abortions. Then in 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the abortion rights granted in Roe v. Wade, while permitting further restrictions. [emphasis added]

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0842237.html

Russ you are simply wrong on this. The details are simply the facts. Arguments about facts do not find their way to the supreme court. The USSC rules on matters of law.

No, Art. You are tying to create absolutes where none exist. This issue is gray and the USSC has treated it as such.

 

[Art]

No, Art, the USSC operates via negation. It doesn't write new laws and set limits on rights, it only strikes down laws and expands rights. Laws already in place that cover different issues and new laws that seek to clarify the ruling must be dealt with on a case by case basis.

A totally strawman argument. I never suggested in any way even remotely that the USSC writes new laws. I went to great pains to point out it interprets laws.

Heck, if what you were saying was true, Row V Wade would not have needed to go before the USSC, but it did because the scope and applicability of the previous ruling was not clear in how abortion would be covered.

What's your point? The USSC once again confirmed the individuals right to privacy.

The whole point of the USSC is to publish opinions to be used as binding precedents in lower courts to prevent the very situation you suggest whereby every case would need an individual ruling to determine the law.

 

[russ_watters]

A totally strawman argument. I never suggested in any way even remotely that the USSC writes new laws. I went to great pains to point out it inteprets laws.

What you said was:

...the presumption is the rights do apply until found otherwise by the courts.

...and that isn't correct. The USSC cannot limit rights, only rule on laws that limit rights. What you suggest is where the phrase "legislating from the bench" came from - the USSC cannot do what you are suggesting they must.

What's your point? The USSC once again confirmed the individuals right to privacy.

Not that clear-cut, but again: if the USSC had made the right to privacy absolute in the previous case: why did this case even get to the USSC?

 

[Art]

What you said was: ...and that isn't correct. The USSC cannot limit rights, only rule on laws that limit rights. What you suggest is where the phrase "legislating from the bench" came from - the USSC cannot do what you are suggesting they must.

I think you misunderstood what I said. My point was that the USSC interpreted the 9th amendment as meaning citizens had the right to privacy as a basic human right under this constitutional amendment. I don't see how you equate this with legislating from the bench??

Not that clear-cut, but again: if the USSC had made the right to privacy absolute in the previous case: why did this case even get to the USSC?

I don't know, could be lots of reasons. Stupid lawyers, rich clients or a mixture of the two? Also I don't know if in the US the supreme court is bound by it's own previous decisions, known as stare decisis (in the UK the House of Lords is) but if not then perhaps somebody was hoping for a different judgement from a new bench.

Also of course as I think you pointed out yourself no rights are absolute so you will always find people trying to drive a coach and horses through a perceived crack but nevertherless at the moment the onus is (or should be) on the gov't to show they are not infringing on people's privacy rights rather than the other way around.

As an interesting piece of trivia it appears there is actually no constitutional authority for the supreme court to undertake judicial reviews. The first landmark case was Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared a federal law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, to be unconstitutional, and thus null and void.

 

[Burnsys]

Well, that's why I asked the question of whether it is privacy for the sake of privacy or fear of government corruption is the isue to you. It would appear that you equate the two. Isn't it possible to separate them?

Well i see privacy as the last line of defence against a corrupt and totalitarian goverment.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Also I don't know if in the US the supreme court is bound by it's own previous decisions, known as stare decisis (in the UK the House of Lords is) but if not then perhaps somebody was hoping for a different judgement from a new bench.

The doctrine of stare decisus is felt as a very strong but not a legally binding constraint on the US Supreme Court. Parties can always hope for a change, but they are not always satisfied in that.

 

[Manchot]

I'm a big fan of the Constitution, a big fan of freedom/liberty, and a big fan of Democracy, but freedom and privacy are not the same thing, and there is a good reason there is no specific right to privacy laid out in the Bill of Rights.

They're not the same thing, but they're closely intertwined. Everyone does legal things that they don't want others to know about, and removing the right of privacy removes our freedom to do those things.

Moreover, just because the right to privacy is not delineated in the Bill of Rights, it does not mean that it isn't a right. It is well-documented that many of the Founding Fathers were concerned that by including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, people would get the wrong idea that everything left out isn't a right. The only reason that the right to privacy wasn't included is because back in the eighteenth century, privacy was not a big concern. Why? Quite simply, it wasn't possible to take it away, any more than it is possible nowadays to take away a conscious person's right to think about a particular subject. There was no method for surveillance short of hiring someone to secretly follow someone around, a method which is unreliable at best. Is that a "good reason?" I don't think so.

Finally, just because phone records aren't private per se, it doesn't mean that they should be used. On a given day, you might do many things in public places that aren't private per se: you might go to work, to the grocery store, to the bank, etc. There are probably security cameras recording the fact that you are there. However, you still retain a large degree of privacy through anonymity, and no one will track your motion for an extended period of time, because it would take undue effort to do so. The point is that there is more than one kind of privacy, and if large databases of phone records are kept, you lose the "takes undue effort to spy" privacy.

By the way, there was a news story a couple days ago regarding a program that the NSA had a few years ago that would anonymously collect phone records and would keep them encrypted to prevent abuses by those in authority. It was cut when the current administration gave them permission to do so without abuse preventions. Shows what they think of privacy.

 

[Manchot]

Hmm, either my argument was persuasive, or I'm a thread killer. (Or no one replied since I resurrected the thread after a three day ban.) Regardless, I'd like to pose a question to those who don't believe that there is a right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. Do I have the right to think about whatever I feel like? If technology is invented in the future that allows the government to disallow thoughts, is that constitutional? It certainly isn't in the Constitution. Did the founding fathers leave the right to think out for a good reason?

 

[SOS2008]

Hmm, either my argument was persuasive, or I'm a thread killer. (Or no one replied since I resurrected the thread after a three day ban.) Regardless, I'd like to pose a question to those who don't believe that there is a right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. Do I have the right to think about whatever I feel like? If technology is invented in the future that allows the government to disallow thoughts, is that constitutional? It certainly isn't in the Constitution. Did the founding fathers leave the right to think out for a good reason?

Personally I feel you've made a persuasive argument, particularly in regard to how much the forefathers could predict the future (e.g., the thought police). I agree the right to privacy is one of our unalienable rights that the framers did not need to specify per se.

Also, violation of privacy has a lot to do with openness versus secrecy in my mind. For example, there are surveillance cameras at banks. But the security reasons are clear and we all know the cameras are there (so we don't pick our nose while waiting in line). In regard to the NSA wiretaps, we don't know that we are gaining additional security--in fact information indicates the contrary. More importantly, we don't know who, where, when or why they are monitoring because there is no oversight. The NSA wiretaps are unacceptable on both of these accounts--as well as an unalienable right. Don't let a chimp fool you folks.

 

[Zantra]

Look at this, then talk to me about how this serves to protect us from terrorism.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.html?tw=wn_index_17

I wrote the following document in 2004 when it became clear to me that AT&T, at the behest of the National Security Agency, had illegally installed secret computer gear designed to spy on internet traffic. At the time I thought this was an outgrowth of the notorious Total Information Awareness program, which was attacked by defenders of civil liberties. But now it's been revealed by The New York Times that the spying program is vastly bigger and was directly authorized by President Bush, as he himself has now admitted, in flagrant violation of specific statutes and constitutional protections for civil liberties. I am presenting this information to facilitate the dismantling of this dangerous Orwellian project

So civil liberties and democracy are a myth protected by a thinly veiled guise of proection, much like a thug threatening to beat you up if you don't pay them "protection money".

That may or may not be an extreme comparison, but this tells me that the civil liberties we fought so hard for, don't exist on one man's whim. And a very stupid man at that. If I have to choose between being "protected" by my government, or taking my chances with the terrorists, I'll take my chances with the terrorists. If I die, at least I'll die free.

I'm telling you, if the government is allowed to continue unchecked, we could end up in an orwellian "1984" society eventually. Propenents always claim "well if you have nothing to hide..." but just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I need or want a complete stranger prying into every orifice of my private life to satisfy curiosity. It's a bargin with the devil, and god help us if we actually make it.

To those of you who support the government actions, I ask: just how far are you willing to go with this line of thought? What WOULD you put up with in the name of safety? Random searches for no reason? Completely absovling privacy? Inability to speak out against the government actions for fear of reprisal? Totalarian regime? Where do YOU draw the line?

 

[BobG]

They're not the same thing, but they're closely intertwined. Everyone does legal things that they don't want others to know about, and removing the right of privacy removes our freedom to do those things.

Moreover, just because the right to privacy is not delineated in the Bill of Rights, it does not mean that it isn't a right. It is well-documented that many of the Founding Fathers were concerned that by including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, people would get the wrong idea that everything left out isn't a right. The only reason that the right to privacy wasn't included is because back in the eighteenth century, privacy was not a big concern. Why? Quite simply, it wasn't possible to take it away, any more than it is possible nowadays to take away a conscious person's right to think about a particular subject. There was no method for surveillance short of hiring someone to secretly follow someone around, a method which is unreliable at best. Is that a "good reason?" I don't think so.

Finally, just because phone records aren't private per se, it doesn't mean that they should be used. On a given day, you might do many things in public places that aren't private per se: you might go to work, to the grocery store, to the bank, etc. There are probably security cameras recording the fact that you are there. However, you still retain a large degree of privacy through anonymity, and no one will track your motion for an extended period of time, because it would take undue effort to do so. The point is that there is more than one kind of privacy, and if large databases of phone records are kept, you lose the "takes undue effort to spy" privacy.

By the way, there was a news story a couple days ago regarding a program that the NSA had a few years ago that would anonymously collect phone records and would keep them encrypted to prevent abuses by those in authority. It was cut when the current administration gave them permission to do so without abuse preventions. Shows what they think of privacy.

How much of the "takes undue effort to spy" privacy are people really losing.

In the past few years, I've had my health insurance company, the veterans administration, and a college* I attended classes at release private information that could be used for identity theft. Part of the reason illegal immigration is so easy to get away with is illegal aliens using other peoples' social security numbers (identity theft again).

For now, the inability of organizations to handle private information is just one good justification for seriously restricting how much information can be collected. However, given current trends, it won't be too long before credit checks on a person will be useless, since there will be no way to tell who's credit is really being reported.

*The college case was so inept as to be funny (at least if it were just other peoples' info and not mine). The college intended to send out a list of upcoming classes to anyone who had attended a class at the school anytime during the last few years. Instead, the worker inadvertantly attached a list containing personal information on everyone currently scheduled for the upcoming term. Unbelievable! Disclosure of personal info has evolved to the point where its sent out as spam!

 

[Skyhunter]

Who needs privacy ?

I think the government should have access to all your email, internet, insurance, banking, and medical records.

Attorney client privilege?

Not in the Neo-America.

The terrorists must be stopped! Since data mining and warrant less wiretaps have so far been totally ineffective, the government needs to further encroach on American civil liberties.

Number of terrorists caught in 4 years as a result of the secret NSA programs. = zero

Being able to completely control the population of the U.S. = priceless