Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. May 15, 2006 #1
    Then NSA secret wire tapping is legal(no "i" in front of that)

    link
    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).
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 15, 2006 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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:
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2006
  4. May 15, 2006 #3
    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.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2006
  5. May 15, 2006 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2006
  6. May 15, 2006 #5
    No of cource not. But look at this
    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.
     
  7. May 16, 2006 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2006
  8. May 16, 2006 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2006
  9. May 16, 2006 #8

    Art

    User Avatar

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2006
  10. May 16, 2006 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2006
  11. May 16, 2006 #10
    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....
     
  12. May 16, 2006 #11

    Art

    User Avatar

    In this case the 9th amendment applies!
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2006
  13. May 16, 2006 #12

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 ?
     
  14. May 16, 2006 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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 CONTRACEPTION.
    But the decision was not unanamous, and the justification not clear-cut:
    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).
     
  15. May 16, 2006 #14
    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 completly useless at finding terrorists.
    Edit: and spying for spying sake is not an explanation.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2006
  16. May 16, 2006 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. May 16, 2006 #16
    You are wrong, it's becouse we fear the goverment and becouse we have a lot of reasons to belive the goverment is becoming more and more corrupt.
     
  18. May 16, 2006 #17
    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 posession 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...
     
  19. May 16, 2006 #18

    Art

    User Avatar

    Good to see you acknowledge privacy is a right.
    :confused: Whether a majority or unanimous decision is irrelevent the decision stands. FYI It was further strengthened in the 'Loving Case' and 'Roe v Wade'.
    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.
     
  20. May 16, 2006 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  21. May 16, 2006 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Then NSA secret wire tapping is legal(no i in front of that)
  1. The secrets of Bush (Replies: 3)

  2. Legal Terrorism (Replies: 2)

  3. NSA data mining (Replies: 9)

  4. Legalized Corruption (Replies: 18)

Loading...