http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Edited to say: Please read the article before you respond. You might not know to what degree you may be losing your privacy!

AP: Privacy Protecting Programs Killed


The Patriot Act, even as it approaches its expiration date, continues to make inroads in learning more and more about American citizens as it aspires to protect us.

How far should we allow the government to go when it comes to our security? Are we willing to lose our privacy in the pursuit of a safer country? Does this constitute a loss of freedom? If so, how much of a loss?

Please share your thoughts.

In a widely reported AP story a couple of days ago, Justice, FBI seek rules for Internet taps, the government released its wishes that all communications equipment to be manufactured in the future would be "wiretap friendly" before it could be released for sale.

and

The article went on to say that this effort would not be funded by the government, but they expected that the manufacturers would be expected to pass the cost on to the consumer...

So, I can expect the next generation of PC or cell phone to be adapted so the government can more easily wiretap my communications and I can expect to pay more for the privilege of losing my privacy. I don't know if voting straight Democratic in November will help to reverse this trend or not, but I would like to get back to the real America of 1984 instead of heading further toward George Orwell's vision of 1984.

It's another case of the Justice Dept. closing the barn door after the terrorists have run out.

This is like that chip that was supposed to be included in every fax machine, so that the FBI could tap into the fax machine and see what's being sent.

Hello? Anyone ever hear of encryption? Do they not realize that terrorists know how to encrypt their e-mail anyway?

It's a dumb idea, raised in a dumb way, with no real results, except they might be able to catch a few more prostitutes who use e-mail to set up "dates".

I voted "No, I have nothing to hide but it's none of their business" because it comes closest to fitting my feelings. Once we start losing our rights it's going to be next to impossible to get them back.

I also have another concern as well. As a peace advocate and a person who has done my fair share of organizing peace activities and participating in anti-war marches, I could be potentially caught up in this nightmare and shipped to Gitmo to never be seen again.

All you have to do is look at the rhetoric, and you know that GWB and his neo-con pals would consider me a "terrorist" even though I would never resort to violence, since after all (funny thing) I'm for PEACE.

There's been efforts in certain states to prosecute activists like myself as terrorists and so this type of invasion of privacy is especially dangerous for those using their first amendment rights to protest an unjust war.

This is just one step on the road to the civilization we all read about in "1984".

I voted that I would like to know who and what they are collecting and scanning.

I would like to know that individual names are only revealed in circumstances where a decisive amount of evidence is presented before the government is allowed to receive the actual identity of the individual.

Just like police are only authorized to enter a residence (invade privacy) when enough evidence is available, the same should be true of electronic data. It exists, and as a smart nation, we should harvest and monitor it.

My idealistic view of how things should be - terrorism is not a war we can fight over seas. Terrorism is a war we need to fight right here on our own home turf. Americans are smart enough - the ingenuity got us this far, and it can get us further, but we need to get serious about protecting ourselves from outside attacks. We need to learn from events like 9/11 and spend the money on making our country more secure - not going after everyone and anyone who threatens or even attacks us. I'm decidedly against war because it can be avoided. All war.

And it was a hard decision for me to come to, because it's the same decision as the following example:
In some areas of the country I've heard that they are using speed cameras to catch speeders - if you are speeding, the camera sensor can tell, and it takes a picture of your license plate and mails you a speeding ticket. No more "I'll speed and hope I don't get caught." (That's my attitude, so of course I was outraged at first when I heard of such devices.) I'm the girl who has a $600/year speeding ticket budget because the 3 or 4 times a year I get caught is worth the paying the fine instead of driving the speed limit all the time. (My age shows I suppose - and my lack of patience). But in reality, if you don't want people to speed, instead of wasting money on trying to catch each speeder one at a time - the money is MUCH better spent on these new cameras. And yes, it feels like an invasion of privacy, but only if you're not obeying the law.
Meanwhile, the SMART municipality has now increased their revenue, decreased their expense, and EFFECTIVELY enforced the laws.

Technology is not something to be looked at with paranoia. Technology does what we TELL it to do. If there is something about it that makes us uncomfortable - we can change it to make it exactly what we want. And the rest can be handled by rules, laws, and legislation. If you are worried that petty criminals' privacy will be violated by this collection of data, then specify in the "policies for using the new system" that only serious crimes are grounds for revealing identities. It's not that hard to make this into what we need. And there is no doubt that it can be more effective then the current system.

If we're as smart as I hope we are, we'll figure out a way to make it work where privacy is not infringed, but at the same time we are able to maximize the HUGE advantages of technology.

Here is something we agree on jenreiautter.

I noticed the choices seemed skewed in favor of those who are against it. My natural instinct is to 'bolster' the other side. I cannot see any way of doing this in this case however. There is only one argument in favor and that is the first one: "YES, whatever it takes to win the war on terror. " I seriously could not imagine any other affirmative answer for this.

So let us look at that one. It is funny to see how loosely the term 'terrorist' is thrown around these days. A kidnapper is a terrorist. A thief is a terrorist. Someone who writes bad checks is a terrorist. Every time I hear the word now I want to vomit. Why can't we just say that the 'contemporary definition' of 'terror' is an asymmetric act of war waged by a very small but militant radical faction(s) of people with an anti-Jewish sentiment, usually of Middle Eastern descent? Perhaps we shouldn't even use the word 'terrorist'. 'Enemy combatant' would be better.

Last week, Columnist Gwynn Dwyer on the so-called 'coup' of the Spanish government by the Basques, stated that the Spanish know how to handle this kind of insurrection. He said "Never, never make 'terrorists' feel more important than they are. Does this mean appease them or do nothing? Nope. It means never, never make 'terrorists' feel more important than they are. There is an assumption that the Basques affected the outcome of the Spanish elections. They say "It is the only thing that can explain why the socialist government won out." Did it occur to those making such assumptions that the former Spanish government might have 'painted a target' on their people by going along with anything and everything the U.S. wants?

One final point. If you voted for "YES, whatever it takes to win the war on terror.", how can anybody say anything about you except you are a confused 'sheep'? 230 years of the U.S. standing for freedom, and you say "oh go ahead and take it"? The last frontier of 'freedom' is what goes on in your head. Everybody should read Orwell's "1984".

I phrased the poll responses the way I did because I could not think of other affirmative responses to the increased monitoring of our communications that would not involve placing some kind of limitations on the agency or agencies doing the intelligence digging. Those limitations, with the exception of the Internet, have been in place for several years now.

My concern is that the intelligence gathered can easily be used for reasons other than fighting criminals or terrorists. Insurance companies could use the information, especially records of hospital and doctor visits, what is purchased at the grocery store, etc. Information could be sold by an unscrupulous investigator to detective agencies, mail order lists, corporations for corporate espionage, or to private individuals for purposes of blackmail.

Every time we assume that a law enforcement official's character is unimpeachable, there surfaces in the news sting operations revealing sheriff's deputies and federal marshalls luring adolescents via the Internet or viewing child pornography, or whatever. Each time we enable our law enforcement officials to conduct more intrusive investigations with fewer checks and balances, we increase the risk of some succumbing to temptation and using what they find for their own purposes.

Edited to say: In addition, while we have government officials now who are sensitive to the privacy rights of the populace, unless we are most vigilant in our choices and keep privacy issues on the front burner for future Congresses, we could find laws on the books that are undesirable (assuming that this "War on Terror" will ever end) and we may have a hard time getting them repealed.

I voted OTHER.

While this type of surveillance has its uses, it must always be tempered.

Of course, I am of the opinion that there is no natural "right to privacy". If you do something in public (send a phone message via public airwaves, for instance), it isn't really private.

I am opposed to illegal "bugging" on private property. But monitoring the usage of publicly available communication methods (internet, phone, etc.) is different in my mind.

I may be naive, but I still believe in the sentiment "If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about."

The government needs modern methods to track down and prosecute modern criminals. This is simply one tool in a very large toolbox that the FBI, CIA and other agencies have been using for years.

Let's look at the other side of the equation: Who thinks that the FBI could not, if they wanted to, recorded all of your conversations 25 years ago. They could have done it, but the resources required would have been extremely burdensome for very little gain.

The same is true today: Sure, the FBI COULD track everyone's internet usage, phone calls, etc. but why would they? Despite the fears of some, the government is full of lazy, paper pushing bureaucrats who want to do the minimal they can and then go home at the end of the day. Since we change "regimes" every 4 or 8 years, the usefulness of this type of information is very limited.

I would have much more problem if a company like Microsoft could do the same. Their agenda could remain fixed for decades. They could devote the resources to accomplishing whatever nefarious goal they wanted. They would pay people enough to do it.

Sure, 1984 is a possibility, just not by this government. It's simply too lazy.

It was the fact that there were a lot of FBI files compiled, especially during the Nixon administration, on ordinary citizens who had no idea and found out later, that led to the Freedom of Information act. It is because of J. Edgar Hoover's administration that we have the concerns we do today about the government prying into our personal affairs.

The system has been abused before.

Why do we allow the government the authority to do many of the "enforcement" things that they do now? Sure, at times they abuse their authority. You know what happens then? Admitted criminals walk free. Even murderers. Because there are rules for how evidence can be gathered. This evidence exists to protect people's privacy even at the expense of losing an admitted criminal back into the public to prey upon other people. With technology, it is even EASIER to determine when the enforcement agencies abuse their power or do things without probable cause.

I don't think the mere existence of collected data will be any reason for anyone to abuse that "power" (or "mess" if we let the government collect it). If anyone DOES abuse it, we can only blame ourselves for not making the consequences dire enough.

And who was harmed?

Where was the widespread prosecution (or persecution) of innocent citizens?

This information has been available to the authorities for decades. Nothing has changed now except the technological ability of criminals to escape justice.

But then, you don't think like a criminal. And between the time the crime is committed and the exposure of the crime, the trial, and the restitution to the victim take place, lives can be ruined.

Are you aware that government agencies under some circumstances need not even divulge the court or the judge from whom they receive their search warrants or wiretaps? "It's a matter of national security" is an effective means of stopping a timely investigation from taking place, case in point Arab-American citizens who have been detained for no discernible reason. Which brings up another point.

Mistakes can be made. There are certain codes that terrorists/criminals use when communicating on the Internet or by other means. Say I use some key phrases that a terrorist/criminal organization has used, or that I unknowingly surf to a site where there is a picture with an encrypted message in it--I will have no idea that my conversations or Internet use are under suspicion until there's a knock on the door. There are NSA satellites that have been in existence for years randomly picking up telephone conversations of anyone and sifting through them. That's just a fact of life for us.

But it is the other law enforcement agencies and the potentials for mistakes and abuse that give me the willies. I don't want to be hauled off to somewhere in the middle of the night because I opposed the War on Iraq and made some angry posts on AD and somebody thought that for those reasons I am dangerous. It isn't too likely that that is going to happen because I'm an Anglo-Saxon, middle-aged Catholic woman, but if I were of Middle Eastern extraction? Who knows?

It is a total violation of the Constitution to try and invade our privacy! What happens when the police decide that you no longer have the right to utter the words Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, or even the word bomb in any other context then "Man, I bombed my test the other day!"??

Another situation that has come to my attention is a new bill in Canada. Bill C-42. It is an "anti-terrorist" bill that removes citizen's rights to privacy. how is that right? I say, pity them, and the direction that they are going in, but also make sure that WE as a proud nation do not allow ourselves to go in that direction! I support the war in Iraq, but nothing, ABSOLUTELY nothing is going to make me give up my right to being a human!

PE: The point to be made here is that your scenario is not only unlikely, it is nigh on impossible.

Is there any evidence that anyone has been questioned (let alone detained) for innocently surfing the internet? or for using "key words" in an otherwise innocent e-mail?

I am not advocating some all powerful central authority somewhere. What I am advocating is that the justice system be given sufficient power to actually investigate possible criminals.

To offset this potentially abusive system, we need a strong Press who will expose possible violations. Checks and balances, the essence of the American system.

A search brought this up from a Yahoo! search of *FBI files during Vietnam*. I am certain that there are many, many more accounts of wrongdoing on the part of authorities during that time period, but I neither have the time nor the inclination to do the research. This should, though, be fairly representative of what happened to protestors of the Vietnam conflict.

http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/memoirs.html



The man gets more specific here:
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/observer.html

Besides, how many instances need to be cited before it becomes evident that such investigative activities are prone to abuse and have caused harm to American citizens?

(Edited to add link)

I take it by "crime" in the above sentence, you are refering to the crime of the government wrongly investigating innocent people.
What about the crimes of the criminals that are being investigated in the first place? No lives are ruined by those criminals?


If this is so, the only ones to blame are the legislatures that allow it (by not passing laws against dumb governmental excuses that impede consumer reports) and the victims who don't bring their cases before the legal system.


Has anyone you know ever been unjustly accused of something due to NSA satellite/telephone monitoring? Are there any statistics about that? Is there a website for innocent detainees who were brought in because of their phone conversations?


Of course, it gives us ALL the willies. But that's more incentive to get on our legislators to pass laws that restrict the power of the executive branch. That's the whole idea behind our government structure. We can't reject helpful technology just because politicians are lazy. Technology rages on, and political policy stands still. We need to rectify the problem so we can have our cake and eat it too.

I don't know. It's a secret organization. I just know what I saw on Sixty Minutes. That much information (as I have included) was explained. They're not about to tip their hands to us.

My point, though, is that there are already a lot of investigative tools in place. The original article I cited dealt with two research projects that the government dropped that would help safeguard our privacy so that there would be less potential for abuse. That's the point of this whole thread. Who is going to make sure that our privacy is safeguarded, and how, if the government is not willing to undertake a program or programs of this nature?

Just because we have never heard of this happening doesn't mean it has not happened. I am continually trusting my government less and less. We have been lied to too many times.



In Goebbel's Germany the mainstream press was the first to be silenced. Oh, but we are Americans! We are just as close to that kind of system as the Germans in the 1930's...

It seems to me that it would be even easier now, considering the fact that all the major media outlets are within the grasp of a few individuals. We don't have a strong independent press!



You may not be advocating such a system, but that's not to say that this isn't where it is going. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?



Like PE has shown, similar things have happened here too.

You must establish a pattern before you accuse the entire system of abuse.

Reading that guys account, he seems very ... conspiratorial. That is not to say his assertions are not true. However, the incidents involved had little to do with any FBI record on him. The very fact that he was able to get his records from the FBI via the FOIA indicates that the system is not abusive at its core.

Ah, American paranoia.

If it had happened...and the individual really wanted the world to know about it, he or she has plenty of avenues to speak up about how violated he or she feels.

Nope, nothing is THAT secret that big-mouthed Americans and their media wouldn't expose the injustices. I work for a secret organization, so I know most of the movie hype is total hogwash, and I NOW know that the paranoia that I once used to think could be somewhat founded - is totally unfounded.

edited to add: I guess we all have different perspectives based on our own experiences. I'd be interested to hear personal accounts of how people have been violated by the Big Brother in DC. If anyone has any personal accounts, please share.

Amlord, If the abuses weren't there the Freedom of Information Act would not have been written and passed into law in the first place! Apparently there was enough of this going on that it actually became an issue Congress addressed. That would imply that quite a bit of abuse was going on.

It's not a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. The abuse came first, then the legislation was enacted.

Well this ain't the NSA, but the FBI.
From NewsMax

There was a article on CNN where they used it to catch drug dealers. I'm still looking.

Amlord,

I don't know about anyone being questioned or detained for surfing the web, or using the wrong words in an email.

But it has happened for other, just as inoccuous activities. Like reading a newspaper column at a coffee shop. The story, written by the guy it happed to, can be found here.



Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds not only like questioning over an everyday occurrance, but a threat to detain and confine this guy, if he can't explain himself adequately.

He finally is able to give the agents what they need, but not before a lot of intimidating questioning and actions, all over a fax of a newspaper column his dad sent him. The story his dad faxed to him, a critical article about Fox News, can be found here. Yeah, really subversive stuff, that.



Here is the FBI's response to all of this:


Since when is reading in a coffee shop "potential terrorist activity"? And if I'm reading something....anything, up to and including "The Anarchist's Cookbook", what business is it of the FBI's? And, as far as this guy goes, how was this "inconvenience" offeset by an "increase in security"? Nigh on impossible, Amlord? Hardly.

The fact is, that these "inconveniences" and invasions of privacy are happening. We don't have to know how many, to know that the government can (and will) abuse these laws sooner or later. Of course, by the time a lot of these abuses come to light, it's really too late, isn't it?

I don't really see the facts that 'these things' are happening.

The entire situation you mention above isn't corroborated anywhere but in this guys own relation of the events.

I find that site CreativeLoafing hard to take at face value - many of their links are broken. Seems a bit sketchy. Not saying the events didn't happen. But also not convinced that they did.

We can't refuse viable ways to protect the country just on conspiracy theories and the possibility of a power imbalance.

Someone asked for examples, or precedent for abuse.

Here is an article reporting on what is rapidly becoming the Thought Police:

http://www.uncletaz.com/ashcroft/thoughtpolice.html

A few , not all:
Barry Reingold, a 60-year-old San Francisco retiree, enjoys daily visits to the local gym, where he works out and talks politics with his friends and acquaintances. Since September 11th, those discussions, like the political discussions many Americans are now having, have gotten heated at times. Heated discussions in the new post-Sept. 11 America, however, can earn one a visit from the FBI.'

Recently, two FBI agents paid a visit to Reingold's home to question him about conversations he had been having at the gym. Someone in the gym, they explained to him, had reported that he had been, "talking about terrorism and September 11th, oil profits, capitalism and Afghanistan." In an interview with Emil Guillermo, author and San Francisco television host, Reingold explained that he had been arguing with his gym mates about how "hundreds and thousands of workers [are] being laid off in the United States," and how, "this war is not just about getting terrorists. It's also about money and corporate oil profits." During a heated argument one day, he called George W. Bush "a dog."

'On Oct. 12, two Secret Service agents paid a visit to the Durham, NC apartment of A.J. Brown, a Durham Tech freshman attending college with the help of an American Civil Liberties Union scholarship. According to a report published in The Progressive, the agents told Brown, "We're here because we have a report that you have un-American material in your apartment." When Brown denied having any such material, the agents specified that they were specifically investigating reports that she had an "anti-American" poster hanging on her wall.'

'The poster in question was an anti-death penalty poster chastising George Bush for overseeing the executions of 152 people as governor of Texas. It showed Bush holding a noose and read, "We hang on your every word. George Bush, Wanted: 152 Dead." Brown opened the door so the agents could inspect her wall of posters, ask a battery of questions, and take notes. They called her two days later to verify her telephone number and ask her if she had any nicknames!'


' In West Virginia, high-school sophomore Katie Sierra was suspended on Oct. 23 after attempting to start an "anarchy club," which was to host a food-not-bombs kitchen, a newspaper, and a book reading and discussion circle. She also committed the crime of wearing a T-shirt decrying "racism, sexism and homophobia." School officials said she couldn't return to school until her parents gave the school permission to examine her medical records and administer psychological tests. When Sierra's mother sought relief in a state court, the court upheld the suspension, forcing her to home-school her daughter.'

'On Oct. 10, the 22-year-old Philadelphia resident was en route to Phoenix to meet his family and head on to a vacation in Disneyland. After checking his luggage, he proceeded to his departure gate carrying nothing but reading material, a copy of The Nation and Edward Abbey's novel Hayduke Lives. According to airport officials, it's the novel, adorned with a picture of a hand grasping dynamite on the cover, which got Godfrey flagged by National Guardsmen patrolling the airport. He was detained for 45 minutes by an assortment of Guardsmen, Philadelphia police officers and Pennsylvania state troopers who diligently took notes as they thumbed through the book.

In the end, he was not allowed on his flight. A United Airlines employee explained that he was banned for three reasons. First was the book he was reading, second was the fact that he purchased his ticket online eight hours before the first hijacked plane hit the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, and third, because his driver's license was expired.'

'On Nov. 9, Dan Muller and Andrew Mandell of Voices in the Wilderness, a group opposed to violence and the US sanctions against Iraq, went to a Chicago post office, attempting to buy 4,000 US postage stamps for an upcoming mailing. According to a report published in The Progressive, a problem emerged, however, when the two made a simple request: They preferred stamps without the American flag. The clerk asked if Statue of Liberty stamps would be OK and they answered affirmatively.

The clerk retreated to a back room and called police, who arrived and questioned the duo as to why they didn't want to buy stamps with the US flag on them. They answered that they preferred the liberty stamps. The police examined their IDs, while the clerk told them she didn't have enough liberty stamps in stock and asked them to return the next day. When they returned, a postal inspector was waiting for them. He interrogated them for 30 minutes.'

FBI harrasses water activists, asked to submit DNA:
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mi...0/msg00240.html
FBI visits Cryptome website owner:
http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=3387

'Two FBI agents went to the University's computer center and told two lower level student staff to go to the library and copy the complete hard drive of a library employee and bring the copy back to them..... ....asked the FBI agents why they needed the data. They responded that the man had an email message that mentioned anthrax. (This was during the anthrax scare, when everyone's email had a message that mentioned anthrax). The University Counsel told the FBI guys that they would need a court order or a subpoena to get the data. They left and never returned.

http://www.libr.org/Juice/issues/vol6/LJ_6.3.html
sec 2

Lets say, as far as we know noone has been arrested for anti-american material or views, but we have had problems with this 'pressure' situation before with Cointelpro and previously McCarthy. Hitlers Germany began with these tactics and same for the KGB. Its a fear tactic, used to silence.

I dont believe its true that because you are not a criminal you are not vunerable, especially with the new laws allowing a person to be detained without a lawyer, indefinately on 'suspicion' of terrorist activities. This is way open for abuse.

I think most who are anti-war activists, writers, artists or other type dissidents who are vocal are most worried about privacy problems. Its too easy to make a case based on flimsy evidence of things said by phone or email, or even talk on this board. The FBI can search your house without consent and never tell you they were there. They can retrieve your computer or anything they like. Id be horrified to have played back to me some of the things that have been said in my house and in emails, wouldnt make for a very good case on my behalf.

"Just cause your paraniod doesnt mean they arent out ta get ya"

Let’s remember that “data mining” is a marketing term for the compiling of available information and the following search for relationships. This is not a new government spy technique.

http://www.thearling.com/
Data Mining, if you haven't heard of it before, is the automated extraction of hidden predictive information from databases.
There is nothing very sinister about this IMO. God only knows we need better intelligence gathering methods if we hope to avert the next terrorist attack. And lets remember that we are entitled to privacy but NOT anonymity.

Amlord,

Regardless of who was harmed, searches of this type are a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.


We cannot allow our government to take shortcuts in order to prosecute terrorists or other criminals. Of course that would be expediant, but at the loss of civil liberties we have held dear for decades.

The courts frequently apply this amendment to any place where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I can appreciate your sentiment here. But if what you are saying is true, then, as these are "public" airwaves, in order for your statement to be just, it has to be transparent and go both ways. It should be legal for any citizen to monitor anyone else's use of the public airwaves, including the government's communications. Can you provide a just reason why, given the thrust of your argument here, only the government should have access to so-called "public" communication streams?

The airwaves actually are public, at least in theory, making them a sort of informational commons. Isn't a logical extension of your own position here, that the FCC should have no power over someone wanting to broadcast their own TV or radio signal? Why should it be illegal for me to build a satellite receiver dish, and watch satellite television for free?



I won't say you are naive, but don't you see how this sentiment could be used to justify even a police state as extreme as Stalin's? Even in the USSR, the authorities could say this. What bothers me about expanding the government's ability to monitor and "catch" various information streams, is this: I don't think your statement is even very relevant, because what we are talking about is not law breaking, it is various "flags." The man carrying an atlas, the fellow talking against Bush in the gym, the person mentioning radical political thoughts in an email. None break the law. Ultimately, they have "nothing to worry about," but should they even have to put up with a missed flight, a sullied reputation, or an aggressive interrogation? I should think not.



Says who? What is your source for this? Do you have some facts to back this up, or is it just an opinion? If it's just an opinion, that's fine, but it seems pretty flimsy to use as a justification for decreased privacy. If they were as lazy as you say, why would they even bother to request additional powers?



I see your point, but... it is only easier if there is a concurrent increase in transparency. Transparency in government is one of the keys to a just society. What scares many civil libertarians is that this administration has been combining proposals (like the PATRIOT act, and those mentioned in this thread) with an unprecedented decrease in transparency. To me this is a frightening combination.

At its radical extreme, liberty becomes a sort of anarchy. At its radical extreme, security becomes totalitarianism. I have always held that it is better to err on the side of too much liberty than on the side of too much authority.

I agree on this but let’s remember that our courts don’t work for the government. As long as the checks and balances are in place we are secure from a totalitarian state such as Russia under Stalin.

Let’s also remember that our government and local law enforcement are far to small to spend a great deal of time suppressing our civil rights.

Remember this is the country with 13,000,000 illegal aliens. The country where M. Atta was granted a visa after he hit the WTC in an airplane. Reports today say Al Quada’s # 2 man has bragged to the press in Pakistan that it has been EASY to acquire a suitcase nuclear weapon!

In this day and age, government use of the airways can be protected from Joe Hamradio easily. So yes, everyone should have access to public communication streams, and everyone does have such access. Making illegal to steal cable or radio subscriptions is a losing battle - technology needs to evolve if it hopes to stay profitable. It will need to protect its own privacy or else die trying. Same with us, technology exists, and it is growing. We need to take responsibility for protecting our own privacy. We can't expect privacy to just endure through the ages without our maintaining it.


Then pass laws requiring sufficient evidence for harassing Americans. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean the checks and balances of our great country can't control it.


I work for the government, I have worked for 3 different agencies of the government and I can say from my own personal experience, yes - the government is full of paper pushing bureaucrats. Yes, most of them do the bare minimum and then go home for the day. For the salaries they draw, I don't blame them. From my technological experience, I believe that even if the government did have access to a huge database of technological data that they wouldn't be able to do much with it. Hopefully all that will change. Hopefully there are areas of the government that actually make progress and do work. But in my experience, if the government operations were a private business, it would have gone bankrupt decades ago.


I agree that the combination of transparency and increased power is a scary prospect. But that situation is not the fault of the mere existence of technology that might give power. That situation is rectifiable, and it is controllable. The legislative policies should be the target of criticism, not the technology. If this country hopes to stay ahead of the curve, we need to use technology and we need to make it fit into the civil rights framework of this country. It will be a difficult task for legislatures to sit down and agree and pass laws regarding how much or what kind of data flags are sufficient for enforcement agencies to harass Americans, but the benefits of such data can't be outweighed by the work required to make it work the way we want it to.


edited: to add link

I've got nothing to hide but it's none of their business. This type of stuff with Big Brother freaks me out, gov't powers increasing is inevitable now that we're fighting the war on terror, but this is a little excessive.

CP

Ignoring for the moment previous responses, I chose 2, It's none of the business of the government but I believe the question left a more rational option!


Which is!

I have nothing to hide but they have no right "unless" they can ultimately prove, given constitutional protections, that I do have something to hide? If they find out that I am not supporting Islamic Fascism but instead violating another law, the violation of the "other" law is still a violation! Why should one " probable cause" search that ultimately uncovers another violation not be valid in prosecuting the existing violation. If you're stopped for a tail light and they find 10 Kilos of Crack while checking the lightbulb? Why not?

I posted this in the poll about neo-Nazis, too, but this link really fits better here in the context of harassment of protestors. This is from today's Muskegon Chronicle:

http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/inde...75175181550.xml



If you are quiet and stay at home, chances are you will not be harassed for your beliefs. That's the way it goes. But is that the kind of America we want to live in?

Not surprising to most...I voted Yes. I am for local, state, and federal authorities having access to all the high tech tools and data that will help them in tracking and bringing down the terrorists. My desire to see the terrorists put out of business is greater than my fear of the authorities abusing my privacy is another way of saying it. Could there be abusers and abuses of that trust? Yes...there are almost always a few rotten apples in any barrel, but it is a chance that I am willing to take.

Will never forget several years ago when 48 Hours or 60 Minutes showed a segment on the data entry of personal information (subscriptions to magazines, club memberships, surveys,etc.) that prison inmates were entering via computer for companies nationwide. Now that to me was scary! And until a few years ago, our Arizona driver's license number was our social security number! Long story short...I am more afraid of con artists/crooks/criminals having access to my private information than the authorities.

This is off topic....but it has to do with our privacy:

As a side note....I just heard on CNN tonight that anybody that donates to a political party online...the amount of money and your name is there on the national campaign's web site for everyone to see. Will have to check that out!

And how about Map Quest and the scads of other map companies that provide cross-reference searches for names or phone numbers or addresses....and bingo a map pops up and shows anybody that has access to your name, addresses or phone number....a nice map right to your front door! I located a former childhood neighbor (2nd grade) that I lost track of for over 50 years!

Almost nothing is private anymore and if the truth were known...most of us would be absolutely astounded at how much anyone with access to a PC and some software programs can find out about us.

Geez, I would be alot more worried about all those people who track you by what your purchase with your credit card, what web sites you visit etc. That is the government my friends, its advertisers. Ever notice how the ads alot of the time seem to be things your are interested in? How many credit card applications to your receive unasked for in the mail. The information is out that, to every Tom, Dick and Harry and Jane. These people aren't trying to keep your safe either. Their goal is to get your money any way they can.

As for giving up rights, we have been giving them up every day by our own design. It's just that it's justified because it saves lives. Well, what do you think the government is trying to do??????? Kill you???????

Just who are "we" in this case? Some of us don't want this, and we have been contacting our Congresspeople to let them know. The White House doesn't respond to e-mail except by automated response. I highly doubt that critical e-mail messages are even read there.



I am not certain that it does save lives. But it certainly disrupts them, and it is clear to me that at least in a few of these cases, the disruption occurs to ordinary people who are not out to get "us" but who are us.



No, CONTROL us.* And that's unacceptable as well. Republicans who are afraid of socialism yet embrace a totalitarianistic concept of government monitoring our every action make me find Libertarian ideas more attractive.


*Without taxpayers' money, the government would have to cut its activities way back. The government needs us, at least our capability of generating taxable income.

(Sure wish I could get this quote thing to work)


I wasn't talking about the Patriot Act. I was talking about anti smoking laws, seat belt laws, etc. You may approve of these, because they save lives. True in both cases, but it also taking away rights. I understand that you might not see it this way, but that's my view. I see the Patriot Act, like most people see the above laws.