The War on Privacy is Over: You Lost

[Russ]

[h=2]'Everyone in US under virtual surveillance' - NSA whistleblower[/h]Q: It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and those who say, 'I’ve nothing to hide. So, why should I care?' What do you say to those who think that it shouldn't concern them.


NSA Whistleblower: The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does, the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you.

http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

 

[White92]

Here is the thread that talks about the new NSA center that they are building near my house. This thing is HUGE!

 

[jond]

I don't understand people who are complacent.
How would you feel if the government installed videocameras inside your house?
How is this any different?

 

[Hapa88]

Ehh.. not too much of an issue to me.
I mean, look at Google Maps.. There's satellite imagery of your house, there's Google Street View. Go into any gas station, grocery store, bank, etc and you're being video taped.
Anyone walking down the street can take a video of you with their camera phone and post it on Youtube without your permission.

Is it right? I don't know but that's the world we live in I guess..

 

[CL65 Captain]

Ehh.. not too much of an issue to me.
I mean, look at Google Maps.. There's satellite imagery of your house, there's Google Street View. Go into any gas station, grocery store, bank, etc and you're being video taped.
Anyone walking down the street can take a video of you with their camera phone and post it on Youtube without your permission.

Is it right? I don't know but that's the world we live in I guess..

If "they" decide peanut butter is bad and you make yourself a peanut butter sandwich. You sit down at your table, and all the sudden there's a knock on the door and it's two cops...

GET YOUR HAND OUT OF MY POCKET AND DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO. Ron Paul 2016!

 

[junior40er]

OK, let me try this again because I was being lazy earlier with my comment. I don't have too much to add that hasnt heard before but I will say it anyways. This is over the line and unacceptable. I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide, but I would never want someone to monitor me unless I was a suspect of a crime or a threat to national security. I know how easy it is to monitor people, I know our world is covered on the net and I know that no matter where we are, there can be electronic surveillance. I have home security cameras that I use to minotor my house and I can access that from the net, I know they can too. I know my laptop, cell phone, tablets etc have mics and cameras and I would feel much better if I knew I had privacy and have no one spying on me (unless I was a suspect for something, even then a warrant should be issued). No matter where I am, there are cameras and mics (cell, public cams etc) and I would not feel comfortable with this at all.

 

[gleibig]

I hope they weren't watching me while I was sitting at my computer last night. :redface:












:tongue:

 

[junior40er]

I did, Thank you for the entertainment.

 

[stevieray122854]

I did too. That was really disturbing.

 

[shawn110975]

that movie Gattaca comes to mind we are almost there.

and the sheep accept it. not me thats for sure

 

[Hard Five]

I did too. That was really disturbing.

Yeah. Using peanut butter like that should be illegal. Poor possum. :biggrin:

 

[Cairo94507]

It is just the continual, on-going errosion of our constitutional rights -read the freaking 4th Amendment. The government is selling us down the river in incremental snippets. One day you will awake and have no privacy at all. WAKE UP AMERICA!

 

[Miner]

Don't worry about big brother.
Worry about big business watching you. Say you are eating that PB&J made with Skippy, they know that and want you to buy Jiff.
Miner

 

[RSO 34]

I don't understand the uproar. It's not like anyone is sifting through billions of emails each day unless you pop up on the government radar. And if you did and the Feds couldn't have immediate access to emails they can very easily get them after even if you deleted them. Most people are clueless that the most privacy rights they lost was when they decided to post everything on social media like Facebook, twitter, YouTube and forums like prime. When I need to investigate someone I generally get at least half of the background info I need through a simple google search of people's voluntary postings. Almost everyone by now has divested themselves of their own privacy thanks to an urge to let the world know everything we are doing or seeing or thinking 24/7, even if nobody really cares at the moment. But it does make my job easier and easier each day.....

 

[Ponyboy]

Information gained through voluntary methods vs. information gleaned coercively or without permission are on opposite ends of the spectrum. From the article, no one/thing/program is sifting through the stored emails unless you get targeted through arbritary criteria. They're simply storing it now for filtering/prosecution later.

I know this started as a protective measure against terrorism and is a sign of our current methods of communication. Guess we have to decide what our goals are: more protection or less rights?

 

[RSO 34]

I have undergone numerous "virtual anal probes" over the years so I guess I'm just not bothered by any of this. I had to get background checks and fingerprinted to obtain a law license in multiple states. I then underwent more checks and fingerprinting to get a carry permit. Still further Homeland Security background checks to get an Enhanced Driver's License to cross into Canada and Mexico without a passport. And finally even more extensive background checks by Homeland Security including facial recognition and now digitial fingerprinting to get my "speed pass" for my passport so I don't have to wait in line in customs entering the country - I just stop at the kiosk, have facial and prints confirmed and walk on through.

If I needed to get fingerprinted just to be able to practice law I don't see why we don't just fingerprint everyone. I'm also for a national DNA database. Combine both of those and I think we will see a drop in crime as the perps realize they most likely will get caught.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

I don't understand the uproar.

Sorry but I'm with Bob on this one. In England, there are cameras on every street, corner and alleyway. People could say it's a huge invasion of privacy, but the reality is that it has done more to help solve/stop crime. There are multiple examples of cold cases that were solved due to video footage and surveillance cameras. And when privacy is leaked, it's almost never in the form of government snooping but rather individuals hacking cel phones and emails.

Remember that thing called the Patriot Act? Remember how everyone was in an uproar about how it was an invasion of privacy and how the government was going to read your emails and tap your phones? Well guess what? The Patriot Act passed and has been in effect this whole entire time. Where's the massive government raids? In fact, do a google search and you'll see where the Patriot Act significantly thwarted several major terrorist plots. Yet I haven't heard of a single case where a completely innocent bystander had his privacy rights trampled by the Patriot Act and/or wrongly tossed in prison.

I'm not saying that more government surveillance is information gathering is a good or bad thing. I'm just saying that it's just a reflection of the changing of the times and technology. Years before fingerprints and DNA testing the government had none of these bits of information on us. I'm sure it would have felt like an invasion of privacy to have your fingerprints taken or DNA swabbed. However, I think it's safe to say that having fingerprint and DNA records has done more to help solve crime than hurt the average citizen.

 

[SFNSXguy]

I have undergone numerous "virtual anal probes" over the years so I guess I'm just not bothered by any of this. I had to get background checks and fingerprinted to obtain a law license in multiple states. I then underwent more checks and fingerprinting to get a carry permit. Still further Homeland Security background checks to get an Enhanced Driver's License to cross into Canada and Mexico without a passport. And finally even more extensive background checks by Homeland Security including facial recognition and now digitial fingerprinting to get my "speed pass" for my passport so I don't have to wait in line in customs entering the country - I just stop at the kiosk, have facial and prints confirmed and walk on through.

If I needed to get fingerprinted just to be able to practice law I don't see why we don't just fingerprint everyone. I'm also for a national DNA database. Combine both of those and I think we will see a drop in crime as the perps realize they most likely will get caught.

Big +1

 

[Ponyboy]

We're clearly discussing different things. The linked article discusses the searching and manipulation of private information (email). This is not information that has been volutarily provided by submission of information for whichever govt. program/process. This is information that is private b/t two individuals and not intended for third party consumption.

For instance, emails b/t a lawyer and their client. The bigger point is that everything you do is, can be, will be under surveillance now. Some people are ok with that and others aren't. However, those that aren't ok with it have the right to privacy (1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments).

 

[Dhalsim]

we're clearly discussing different things. The linked article discusses the searching and manipulation of private information (email). This is not information that has been volutarily provided by submission of information for whichever govt. Program/process. This is information that is private b/t two individuals and not intended for third party consumption.

For instance, emails b/t a lawyer and their client. The bigger point is that everything you do is, can be, will be under surveillance now. Some people are ok with that and others aren't. However, those that aren't ok with it have the right to privacy (1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments).

Big +1

 

[SFNSXguy]

Anything one writes in an email has all the "privacy" of what's written on a postcard. Get used to it.

 

[Russ]

Virtually every telephone call in the US (including landline) is transmitted digitally at some point, and voice traffic is routinely routed over the internet. That and everything else being transmitted on the internet is being vacuumed up.

This goes way beyond email.

 

[naaman]

Ponyboy is right on. The 4th amendment protects against government snooping by requiring a government agent to either gain a warrant (based on probable cause) to forcibly collect information/evidence etc, or else acquire the voluntary permission of the owner. For example, if a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy, and a law enforcement officer has not established probable cause to enter a private enclosure, then anything he finds there is not admissible in court because it would have required the officer to break the law in order to obtain it. That is why police officers often ask "may we come in?" when you answer the door. Once you give permission, anything in plane site becomes allowable in a court of law.

Under no circumstances could emails be reasonably considered "in public view." An email inherently carries with it a reasonable expectation to privacy. For the government to have access to this information at it's pleasure is a gross violation of privacy and the trust of the people. A phone call placed in a private enclosure also meets these same requirements.

Instead of giving the government more power to survey the people (for to purpose of "protecting" them or solving crimes), give the people more power to protect themselves. Make concealed carry permits obtainable at the federal level, for example. It's statistically evident that gun-friendly areas have considerably reduced rates of violent crime than the ones which put super-tight restrictions on ownership and carry. The role of government is supposed to be to protect life, property and rights. By collecting and storing this information, the government is not only failing in two of these areas, it is actually violating it's charge.

I can live with the idea of a finger print database, but a DNA database is way out of the question, as far as I'm concerned. Given that it's possible to grow a life form in a petri dish, I don't want the government having access to my genetic material. If they need a sample for a court case, that's one thing. But they better show up with warrant in-hand.

 

[Vega$ NSX]