Big Brother Is Spying On You!

[north country dude 205]

 

In answer to the rose colored vision "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", IT DOES'T FRICKEN MATTER! They will just make it up if you are perceived for any reason to be a threat to Big Brother, YOU are a target. Gay, straight, leftist, rightist, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Atheist,...it doesn't matter, YOU are the target! For what ever reason it needs to be.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense and does not stroke with reality. How many people did the NSA actually have arrested based on out of context information? How many of those court cases actually hold out (and before you say NDAA, that works on the executive order of the president and only with terrorism charges). And how often did it actually listen in on peoples phones? 300 times according to the latest news. Thats not that often. How many terrorist attacks were stopped? 2 in the US as well as in 20 other countries. Again, that is according to the latest news.

 

Really??? so it only works half the time? Did it prevent the Boston bombings? It is an excuse, it is not necessary for capturing or preventing terrorism, it is illegal, and goes against constitutional law. Does it make sense now?

 

So far, all the evidence does not support the claim that the NSA is willfully targeting everyone based on a single wrong call. They are not randomly going after people because they can. They are not making up charges so they can go after you. They might be able to, but they are not doing it. And just because they might be able to do something, its not a valid reason to base your attack on them on what 'they might be able to do'. The police might also be able to plant evidence on you and arrest you for that and that is also not a reason to get rid off the police or restrict them from arresting people.

-You know this for a fact? If the apparatus is already in place, who watches the watchers? Who makes sure it doesn't get used improperly? The trusted ELITE!?!?

The police ARE restricted by law. And, they wouldn't go after "random" targets, just the political ones that stand in their way, like the IRS did during Obama's re-election. Of course, this power can, has and will be misused.

 

Of course, you can also ignore all the evidence based on the fact that its coming from the US government who are all a bunch of liars and frauds and just base your entire argument and line of reasoning on what feels about right. So far, that is what most people have been doing, given the emotional responses everywhere.

 

-it is not necessary for capturing or preventing terrorism, it is illegal, and goes against constitutional law.

 

Also as a non US citizen, I'd ask you to stop complaining. The US and NSA has been spying on the rest of the world for decades now. We never had any privacy to begin with and you guys never cared about that either.

 

 

And as a US citizen I'd ask you stay out of the argument, since you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about,...that's a fair reply to your statement there, isn't it?

 

Point of fact: By LAW it is illegal for the NSA to spy on US citizens,...but they do. As far as governments spying on each other, this doesn't belong in the argument, it is an obfuscation and irrelevant. Why? Because all governments keep tabs on their enemies and allies in order to protect it's citizens from outside harm. BUT, since when have the American citizens become an enemy of the US Federal Government?

 

 

That doesn't matter. YOU don't care. But that does not make it a universal rule. Another person might care. And that's the point. If a bunch of loonies takes over power, they have everything they need to execute their plans, then they have total control. And loonies can take over power very easily, history has shown. I can imagine the Turkish prime minister would be very glad to use that kind information at this moment, if he could. It's not just simply rational choice theory, people don't work like that. Different people think differently about the world. I find other things important than the people around me. I am liberal and left. Other people are authoritarian and right. This has consequences in power. In some countries it is forbidden for women to show their hair in public. I don't care about hair, but clearly, other people do. They use their power in a different way.

 

Besides, there is no government that needs to know everything about me. No-one needs to know my political colour if I don't tell them. No-one should know where I buy my groceries and what I buy. No-one needs to know if I watch porn. The government does not need to know anything but the things necessary to make sure the society functions like it should. But it should not have the ability to construct a complete image of my life, what I do, what I think. This opens the door for misuse and does not fit in a democracy.

 

(By the way, there will be no automated government, because society cannot be understood by rules. Society is much more complex than that. Human thought is flexible, people are pragmatic, there is a personal aspect in negotiations, a moral aspect,... Society doesn't work in an 'IF A AND IF BE OR IF C THEN D'-way.)

 

Total loonies are a problem whether the government has compiled a large file of data on everyone or not. And having access to such information doesn't make them any less or worse. The Nazis were already brutally effective and they did not have access to such an insane amount of data. The Soviets were equally ruthless and effective and they to did not have such information. A modern bureaucracy is more than enough to install a very effective totalitarian state and also more than enough to start arresting people at random.

 

Yes, yes, we should certainly give the trusted elite even more power. We shouldn't speak out against it, we have nothing to hide. But who watches the watchers?

 

And why is it a problem if the government(apple) knows those things, and not a problem if almost every modern company(orange) does. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, telephone company, Internet providers. They know exactly what you are doing the moment you use one of their services and generally people use multiple of those services on a daily base. 'But they keep it to themselves' you might say. No they don't. They generally don't want to give it out to the government, but they sure as hell sell it to other companies who then use it for targeted marketing. And if those companies don't sell it, they sure as hell use the information themselves. How else do you think that those ads generally correspond with either your interests or with sites you have already visited in the past?

-A foolish argument here. Because a business does not have the power to kick in your door and arrest you, a government can and does. A business, by Federal Law cannot misuse the information it collects about its customers. Telemarketers cannot call you, if you are on the "Do Not Call" list, and spamming customers against their wishes is illegal and prosecuted, by the Federal Government. Identity theft is also illegal and prosecuted by the Federal Government. But who prosecutes the Federal Government?

 

Finally, post singularity robots contain artificial intelligence powerful and smart enough that they think faster and more effective than humans, while considered all the variables that we include in our decision making processes as well.

irrelevant.

 

On a side note, why do I see so many pro gun advocates yelling about government tyranny? I thought your second amendment was an insurance that the government could not turn into a tyranny?

As a side note, it is obviously about constitutional law and not a pro gun argument, but as expected, some more name calling.

 

my opinion, not speaking for others.

 

In all honesty, I am completely okay with the government tapping my phone lines, looking at my facebook data etc. As long as they aren't going to use that information to incriminate me for anything, than I am completely fine. I got nothing to hide.

Then you have nothing to worry about until you are perceived as an enemy of the State. The capriciousness of current Federal Law does not protect you even though you think you have nothing to hide.

 

To find out what the big picture is pay attention to how the messenger is vilified and not the message. The current government has been caught red handed, not once, not twice, but more than three times acting against the American public. Post 9/11 America has had its Constitution virtually ignored and trampled all over in the name of security.

[LexusInfernus 908]

How many WILL they? How many have you not heard about? How is that information passed along to their affable friends with absoluely no morale? Might this information aid the CIA in snatching more people of Italian streets for some afternoon torture in Cairo? Is that number even relevant? If government interventions' lawfulness is to be judged on quantitative criterias?

 

 I honestly wouldn't care if the CIA grabs someone in Italy or the US if it means a plane does not get blown out of the sky. And apparantly they have, given that they have prevented multiple terrorist attacks all around the world. 

 

 

What kind of an argument is that? The police has always been restricted in its powers. The police ARE restricted from arresting people, that is the only reason society tolerates their powers!

 

So? The NSA is also restricted in its powers. It can't go around looking at people without some form of authorization and that authorization is based on evidence. Of course, its possible for them to fake evidence, but it is also possible for the police to fake evidence. And that has happened on multiple occasions. Still, does the fact that the police is open to corruption mean that we should not have a police at all? Of course not. 

 

 

Are you seriously trying to say that the American government is not lieing about this? There is no pile of evidence to conduct any meaningful investigation. There is selective evidence for both sides, although what the government is producing is of course hearsay for the most part. Believeing that a government does not tell the truth about how government business is conducted does not equal "emotional response", unless the term "clandestine service" does not mean what it used to mean.

 

Oh no, I believe they telling us half truths. And again, so far the arguments against it are very much based on overly emotional responses. Half of the people here already assumes that the government is just days away from arresting every body on suspicion of terrorism. Or that the government is only there to screw them over. 

 

 

As a non-US citizen you do not seem acquainted with the view on government and Western philosophy concerning such matters in general. If you are wishing for a secret lex regia you are a few hundred years late. How you can even manage to claim "your" missing privacy as an argument for someone else to not keep theirs is fantastic.

 

I see it more as some fairness. The US has been spying on everyone in the past few decades, without anyone in the US being concerned about the privacy of the people outside the US, and no suddenly its a big deal when it turns out that recent security events have proven it quite necessary for the government to also spy on US citizens themselves. Only pull the trigger if you are prepared to get shot and you can't have cake and eat it too. 

 

 

 

 

 

It is an excuse, it is not necessary for capturing or preventing terrorism, it is illegal, and goes against constitutional law.

 

-You know this for a fact? If the apparatus is already in place, who watches the watchers? Who makes sure it doesn't get used improperly? The trusted ELITE!?!?

 

Given what little evidence we have, it was apparently very useful for stopping terrorists as they have prevented several terrorist plots. As for who watches the NSA? Who watches the police? The Government? The Judiciary? Seriously, who watches anyone with power? And who watches the watchers? Internal affairs watches the police, the people and the judiciary watch the government, no one watches the judiciary, and the bureaucracy watches itself just as the government watches the bureaucracy. The police watches the people. And well, who watches the NSA? The government, as well as the Judiciary and I assume the NSA has some kind of internal affairs board as well. So plenty of things watch the watchers. 

 

 

 

 

And as a US citizen I'd ask you stay out of the argument, since you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about,...that's a fair reply to your statement there, isn't it?

 

Point of fact: By LAW it is illegal for the NSA to spy on US citizens,...but they do. As far as governments spying on each other, this doesn't belong in the argument, it is an obfuscation and irrelevant. Why? Because all governments keep tabs on their enemies and allies in order to protect it's citizens from outside harm. BUT, since when have the American citizens become an enemy of the US Federal Government?

 

About time someone changes that law. Its ridiculous that the government cannot effectively check its own citizens when homegrown terrorism is an increasing problem. 

 

And like I said, the US has been spying on the rest of the world for years now. You think your privacy has been violated? Thanks to you guys the rest of the world never really had any privacy to begin with! And now I should feel sad for America because it just found out that it can't have cake and eat it too? 

 

 

 

-A foolish argument here. Because a business does not have the power to kick in your door and arrest you, a government can and does. A business, by Federal Law cannot misuse the information it collects about its customers. Telemarketers cannot call you, if you are on the "Do Not Call" list, and spamming customers against their wishes is illegal and prosecuted, by the Federal Government. Identity theft is also illegal and prosecuted by the Federal Government. But who prosecutes the Federal Government?

 

 

 

 

Yeah, you know, the police has exactly the same problem. If the police department really wants too, it can also harass citizens by planting false evidence and stuff like that. But do you hear a lot of people arguing that we should get rid of the police? No, because generally the police in Western states are relatively corruption free, thanks to all kinds of internal layers of security that make this difficult. Do you really think the NSA operates without any kind of internal checks? That once you are hired by the NSA you get free reign to just spy on whoever you please? On company time and using company resources? You can be sure that the NSA has some kind of internal monitoring system, even if it was only to prevent people from wasting time, money and resources by spying on their mothers bridge club. 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The basic problem is you don't know what will happen anytime in the near future.  You also don't know what the content of the data that is being kept on you.  A slight hiccup in some government office could land you in court for the most "innocent" of reasons. 

 

All this digging without a warrant is tyranny already. 

 

Then you take the dysfunctional US congress, and the number of unthinking flag wavers there and you really have the data collectors in charge.  The tail is wagging the dog, and the dog doesn't even realize its tail is being pulled.

[north country dude 205]

I see it more as some fairness. The US has been spying on everyone in the past few decades, without anyone in the US being concerned about the privacy of the people outside the US, and no suddenly its a big deal when it turns out that recent security events have proven it quite necessary for the government to also spy on US citizens themselves. Only pull the trigger if you are prepared to get shot and you can't have cake and eat it too.

 

Then, you're just trolling, right? Since it is obvious that this argument holds no water what so ever. It's just an personal opinion and primarily an misinformed emotional response to the issue, correct?

 

 

Yeah, you know, the police has exactly the same problem. If the police department really wants too, it can also harass citizens by planting false evidence and stuff like that. But do you hear a lot of people arguing that we should get rid of the police? No, because generally the police in Western states are relatively corruption free, thanks to all kinds of internal layers of security that make this difficult. Do you really think the NSA operates without any kind of internal checks? That once you are hired by the NSA you get free reign to just spy on whoever you please? On company time and using company resources? You can be sure that the NSA has some kind of internal monitoring system, even if it was only to prevent people from wasting time, money and resources by spying on their mothers bridge club.

 

 

If you believe that then you are living in a fantasy world.

 

Just to get acquainted with the real issue, you really should read the entire transcript of Edward Snowden's interview with the Gaurdian?,...then ask yourself, what "checks and balances"?

[krbe 193]

[snip]

You honestly wouldn't care whether civil rights exist or not for all, as long as others might possibly be saved. NCD's concern about the "watchers" have no relevance here - after all, the CIA is American, with no power in Italy, cooperating with regimes which most closely resemble what you wish to see in the West. Accountability is not the first word that springs to mind concering situations like these, and that is exactly the concept that has contributed to the rise of separate domestic and foreign intelligence services?

Why, you might ask, if you have any regards for the individual. The answer is quite simple: Foreign intelligence agencies operate in a room devoid of law. Foreign intelligence agencies acts are carried out in a jurisdiction different from which it belongs. The agency's jursidiction have authority to prosecute acts carried out abroad, but are not required to. This works well because a foreign agency has no authority whatsoever. Everything it does in spite of this fact will be a criminal act.

Not so with domestic intelligence agencies. They operate within the regulatory realm of the police, and in principle, they answer to the government (as "employer") and the courts (as "overseers"). This might make the gathering of information itself harder (as they are being watched), but acting on the information at hand is so much easier - as their remedies are (for the most part) completely legal.

And there is no need being hurt because the Americans are looking at you. If they see anything, they can't do anything about that unless reverting to a primitive criminal. Or they can pass the information on to "friends". Something that is a hell lot less scary if their friends do not possess the ability to "effectivly check its own citizens when homegrown terrorism is an increasing problem."

Then, you're just trolling, right? Since it is obvious that this argument holds no water what so ever. It's just an personal opinion and primarily an misinformed emotional response to the issue, correct?

An idiot proof proof, one which better idiots will be made to challenge.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Then, you're just trolling, right? Since it is obvious that this argument holds no water what so ever. It's just an personal opinion and primarily an misinformed emotional response to the issue, correct?

 

 

If you believe that then you are living in a fantasy world.

 

Just to get acquainted with the real issue, you really should read the entire transcript of Edward Snowden's interview with the Gaurdian?,...then ask yourself, what "checks and balances"?

 

Someone else mentioned a similar feelings to drones. The US has no problem assassinating foreigner with drones, but hey, if the bad guy happens to be someone with an American citizenship, its suddenly not done. This is no different. The US is fine with spying on everyone, which is exactly what it has been doing for the past few decades, but if it turns out the US was also spying on itself than again, it suddenly no longer okay. Again, either accept that you spy and that you spy on everyone, or simply get rid of spying all together. 

 

Also, I've read the interview. What check and balances? The government, YOUR government. As well as NSA itself, because as I said, they do not have the money, manpower and resources to check on everyone. Therefor, they only go after what looks suspicious. And no, not everyone looks suspicious. 

 

 

You honestly wouldn't care whether civil rights exist or not for all, as long as others might possibly be saved. NCD's concern about the "watchers" have no relevance here - after all, the CIA is American, with no power in Italy, cooperating with regimes which most closely resemble what you wish to see in the West. Accountability is not the first word that springs to mind concering situations like these, and that is exactly the concept that has contributed to the rise of separate domestic and foreign intelligence services?

Why, you might ask, if you have any regards for the individual. The answer is quite simple: Foreign intelligence agencies operate in a room devoid of law. Foreign intelligence agencies acts are carried out in a jurisdiction different from which it belongs. The agency's jursidiction have authority to prosecute acts carried out abroad, but are not required to. This works well because a foreign agency has no authority whatsoever. Everything it does in spite of this fact will be a criminal act.

Not so with domestic intelligence agencies. They operate within the regulatory realm of the police, and in principle, they answer to the government (as "employer") and the courts (as "overseers"). This might make the gathering of information itself harder (as they are being watched), but acting on the information at hand is so much easier - as their remedies are (for the most part) completely legal.

And there is no need being hurt because the Americans are looking at you. If they see anything, they can't do anything about that unless reverting to a primitive criminal. Or they can pass the information on to "friends". Something that is a hell lot less scary if their friends do not possess the ability to "effectivly check its own citizens when homegrown terrorism is an increasing problem."

I prefer my freedom of speech and freedom of press over my privacy. And you do not need privacy to have freedom of speech and press. 

 

And I think Friedman made a good point when he said he didn't like this, but that he preferred less privacy over another 9/11 and the likely consequences. I mean, remember what 9/11 did to your civil liberties? The Patriot Acts? Yeah, better to prevent another disaster which gives rise to more actual restrictions on your civil liberties. 

 

Also, isn't what the NSA has done so far already legal? Didn't they already have permission from the judge to do what they did? So then, this is not a question of legality, but of whether the public likes what is already legal. 

[Cobraroll 138]

 

I see it more as some fairness. The US has been spying on everyone in the past few decades, without anyone in the US being concerned about the privacy of the people outside the US, and no suddenly its a big deal when it turns out that recent security events have proven it quite necessary for the government to also spy on US citizens themselves. Only pull the trigger if you are prepared to get shot and you can't have cake and eat it too.

 

Then, you're just trolling, right? Since it is obvious that this argument holds no water what so ever. It's just an personal opinion and primarily an misinformed emotional response to the issue, correct?

 

Thought experiment: Imagine that some guy in the British government suddenly revealed that the MI6 has been running a massive surveillance programme for several decades, keeping tabs on people potentially threatening British security. Including a lot of American citizens who, for the most part, weren't actually even thinking about threatening Britain, but judging from their behaviour, it was hard to tell so they were spied on anyway. Imagine that your phone calls were logged on some random server in Staffordshire, and that some Ian or Phil was employed by the British government to go through the e-mails of average Americans such as yourself. However, British people wouldn't be spied on, because British people have rights according to British law, but Americans are generally considered fair game (after all, British laws or bills of rights don't say a word about Americans). Imagine that those very words were used by British officials when asked about the situation. Forget about your Constitution or whatever relevant amendments there are. The British government isn't bound by American laws.

 

How would American people - or media - react? Would you be upset? Would there be riots outside British embassies? Would your politicians condemn the practise, or just shrug and say "It's the British. They are entitled to do whatever their foreign office thinks is for the best of their national security"? Perhaps your government would try to stop it? Well, big brother Britain wouldn't be so happy about that.

 

 

Hopefully, you understand how European people feel about this. Now let's try the Pakistani or Yemenites: add British aircraft bombing farms in the rural US for reasons never adequately explained to the Americans. Your government would also mostly let this happen, though they wouldn't bother telling you why either. Would you be angry now?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

my opinion, not speaking for others.

 

In all honesty, I am completely okay with the government tapping my phone lines, looking at my facebook data etc. As long as they aren't going to use that information to incriminate me for anything, than I am completely fine. I got nothing to hide.

 

 

 Incriminate you for what? What have you done that might incriminate you? Maybe we need to find out. Don't resist, we just need to check you out... y'know, to be sure. Let's see your tax returns for the last 7 years. Oh, and we're going to need a DNA sample as well. Trust us, it's for our safety as well as yours.

[north country dude 205]

Then, you're just trolling, right? Since it is obvious that this argument holds no water what so ever. It's just an personal opinion and primarily an misinformed emotional response to the issue, correct?

An idiot proof proof, one which better idiots will be made to challenge.

 

 

Yeah, I kinda walked into it there. 

 

 

I see it more as some fairness. The US has been spying on everyone in the past few decades, without anyone in the US being concerned about the privacy of the people outside the US, and no suddenly its a big deal when it turns out that recent security events have proven it quite necessary for the government to also spy on US citizens themselves. Only pull the trigger if you are prepared to get shot and you can't have cake and eat it too.

 

Then, you're just trolling, right? Since it is obvious that this argument holds no water what so ever. It's just an personal opinion and primarily an misinformed emotional response to the issue, correct?

 

Thought experiment: Imagine that some guy in the British government suddenly revealed that the MI6 has been running a massive surveillance programme for several decades, keeping tabs on people potentially threatening British security. Including a lot of American citizens who, for the most part, weren't actually even thinking about threatening Britain, but judging from their behaviour, it was hard to tell so they were spied on anyway. Imagine that your phone calls were logged on some random server in Staffordshire, and that some Ian or Phil was employed by the British government to go through the e-mails of average Americans such as yourself. However, British people wouldn't be spied on, because British people have rights according to British law, but Americans are generally considered fair game (after all, British laws or bills of rights don't say a word about Americans). Imagine that those very words were used by British officials when asked about the situation. Forget about your Constitution or whatever relevant amendments there are. The British government isn't bound by American laws.

 

How would American people - or media - react? Would you be upset? Would there be riots outside British embassies? Would your politicians condemn the practise, or just shrug and say "It's the British. They are entitled to do whatever their foreign office thinks is for the best of their national security"? Perhaps your government would try to stop it? Well, big brother Britain wouldn't be so happy about that.

 

 

Hopefully, you understand how European people feel about this. Now let's try the Pakistani or Yemenites: add British aircraft bombing farms in the rural US for reasons never adequately explained to the Americans. Your government would also mostly let this happen, though they wouldn't bother telling you why either. Would you be angry now?

 

Wow, that's a pretty convoluted "thought experiment". Perhaps one that would explain how Europeans would feel about their own governments violating their civil rights might be better? Perhaps something about what Interpol does? What about what the Russian government does?

 

Governments spying on another governments people? How does that relate to illegal acts committed by a government on its own citizens? Or how a government given too much power can only devolve into a tyranny?

 

How do Europeans feel about their own governments spying on them? Gathering unnecessary data about their personal lives? Are they just apathetic about it all?

 

Why should the Europeans care about a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

of course gov'ts spy on each other. I for one would be more outraged if we WEREN'T spying on the Chinese. God knows they have devoted the last 30 years to ripping us off for everything from military plans to house paint formulations (the Valspar case).

 

It was an American spy working in the KGB's Moscow HQ that almost single-handedly prevented a full nuclear war in Nov 1983. Not by passing secrets, but by tipping us off that the Soviets saw the Able Archer war games as a serious threat and were this/close to launching a pre-emptive strike. We had no idea the USSR had gone to to full war footing and maximum alert.

[Sloonei 25]

my opinion, not speaking for others.

 

In all honesty, I am completely okay with the government tapping my phone lines, looking at my facebook data etc. As long as they aren't going to use that information to incriminate me for anything, than I am completely fine. I got nothing to hide.

Of course you don't. Remember Mr Obama is only thinking about what's best for you. The least you could give him, his public sector and all the diverse "contractors" he pays, is complete access to your communication.

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line? I'm thinking of both how intimate details you'¨re willing to share with a few million strangers and their computers, and how they use it.

 

 

 

I draw the line at where it's being used as a threat to my personal well being... And you know it's no different from the thousands of private companies and sites you sign up for from doing the same, schools even do the same thing. So what makes it any different from that?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Wow, that's a pretty convoluted "thought experiment". Perhaps one that would explain how Europeans would feel about their own governments violating their civil rights might be better? Perhaps something about what Interpol does? What about what the Russian government does?

 

Governments spying on another governments people? How does that relate to illegal acts committed by a government on its own citizens? Or how a government given too much power can only devolve into a tyranny?

 

How do Europeans feel about their own governments spying on them? Gathering unnecessary data about their personal lives? Are they just apathetic about it all?

 

Why should the Europeans care about a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Problem is, we know the American intelligence agencies have been spying on us for decades now. ECHELON is another NSA program, capable of signal interception, including internet, and recording it. And its all aimed at Europe. Well, aimed at the rest of the world. Including Europe. It doesn't matter what European states do when it comes to privacy, its clear the US has already been gathering unnecessary data on our daily lives. And should we get mad? Why bother, the US is not going to listen to what European citizens want. We have no legal recourse, we have no laws that can protect us from the all seeing eyes of the US. 

 

But then it should come as no surprise that we also do not feel particularly sorry for Americans when it turns out they don't have much privacy left either. Welcome to the rest of the world. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You all know that this is a tempest in a tea pot. 

 

The various agencies of the various governments have done this since two tribes lived in different caves.  The only real difference is that super-computers and the huge communications net have made it easier.  We may value our privacy, but the governments, while giving this lip service, do not.  Secret snooping is the rule not the exception. 

 

So why all the fuss?

[AkemiAzula 280]

 

That doesn't matter. YOU don't care. But that does not make it a universal rule. Another person might care. And that's the point. If a bunch of loonies takes over power, they have everything they need to execute their plans, then they have total control. And loonies can take over power very easily, history has shown. I can imagine the Turkish prime minister would be very glad to use that kind information at this moment, if he could. It's not just simply rational choice theory, people don't work like that. Different people think differently about the world. I find other things important than the people around me. I am liberal and left. Other people are authoritarian and right. This has consequences in power. In some countries it is forbidden for women to show their hair in public. I don't care about hair, but clearly, other people do. They use their power in a different way.

 

Besides, there is no government that needs to know everything about me. No-one needs to know my political colour if I don't tell them. No-one should know where I buy my groceries and what I buy. No-one needs to know if I watch porn. The government does not need to know anything but the things necessary to make sure the society functions like it should. But it should not have the ability to construct a complete image of my life, what I do, what I think. This opens the door for misuse and does not fit in a democracy.

 

(By the way, there will be no automated government, because society cannot be understood by rules. Society is much more complex than that. Human thought is flexible, people are pragmatic, there is a personal aspect in negotiations, a moral aspect,... Society doesn't work in an 'IF A AND IF BE OR IF C THEN D'-way.)

 

Total loonies are a problem whether the government has compiled a large file of data on everyone or not. And having access to such information doesn't make them any less or worse. The Nazis were already brutally effective and they did not have access to such an insane amount of data. The Soviets were equally ruthless and effective and they to did not have such information. A modern bureaucracy is more than enough to install a very effective totalitarian state and also more than enough to start arresting people at random. 

 

And why is it a problem if the government knows those things, and not a problem if almost every modern company does. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, telephone company, Internet providers. They know exactly what you are doing the moment you use one of their services and generally people use multiple of those services on a daily base. 'But they keep it to themselves' you might say. No they don't. They generally don't want to give it out to the government, but they sure as hell sell it to other companies who then use it for targeted marketing. And if those companies don't sell it, they sure as hell use the information themselves. How else do you think that those ads generally correspond with either your interests or with sites you have already visited in the past? 

 

Finally, post singularity robots contain artificial intelligence powerful and smart enough that they think faster and more effective than humans, while considered all the variables that we include in our decision making processes as well. 

 

 

On a side note, why do I see so many pro gun advocates yelling about government tyranny? I thought your second amendment was an insurance that the government could not turn into a tyranny?

 

For once Lexus I am in agreement with you. Post-singularity is the big thing to consider here. It's not that far over the horizon, and when it comes we can forget all the present mental and religious and cultural issues that make humans 'human'. Then finally rationality will prevail. It'll certainly reduce motoring accidents at any rate...

 

A Nonny Moose "You all know that this is a tempest in a tea pot. 

 

The various agencies of the various governments have done this since two tribes lived in different caves.  The only real difference is that super-computers and the huge communications net have made it easier.  We may value our privacy, but the governments, while giving this lip service, do not.  Secret snooping is the rule not the exception. 

 

So why all the fuss?"

 

Well said. Spying arose with humanity. One cave spied upon the next and so forth. This is just reactionary paranoia about emerging tecnological progress. Luddite paranoia.

[north country dude 205]

 

Wow, that's a pretty convoluted "thought experiment". Perhaps one that would explain how Europeans would feel about their own governments violating their civil rights might be better? Perhaps something about what Interpol does? What about what the Russian government does?

 

Governments spying on another governments people? How does that relate to illegal acts committed by a government on its own citizens? Or how a government given too much power can only devolve into a tyranny?

 

How do Europeans feel about their own governments spying on them? Gathering unnecessary data about their personal lives? Are they just apathetic about it all?

 

Why should the Europeans care about a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Problem is, we know the American intelligence agencies have been spying on us for decades now. ECHELON is another NSA program, capable of signal interception, including internet, and recording it. And its all aimed at Europe. Well, aimed at the rest of the world. Including Europe. It doesn't matter what European states do when it comes to privacy, its clear the US has already been gathering unnecessary data on our daily lives. And should we get mad? Why bother, the US is not going to listen to what European citizens want. We have no legal recourse, we have no laws that can protect us from the all seeing eyes of the US. 

 

But then it should come as no surprise that we also do not feel particularly sorry for Americans when it turns out they don't have much privacy left either. Welcome to the rest of the world. 

 

And still we compare "apples" to "oranges". Foreign Intelligence and Domestic Intelligence are two different things that use the same methods. So, let me ask you, Do the European governments also have Foreign Intelligence services? Do these services spy on citizens outside of their governments? Do these services spy on citizens within their respected nations? And do the European citizens become outraged over their own governments intrusion of their privacy? or are they just apathetic about what their governments do?

 

Again, Complaining that your own government is spying on people outside of it is NOT the same thing as Complaining that your own government is invading your privacy and misusing it powers to interfere with your life.

 

 

For once Lexus I am in agreement with you. Post-singularity is the big thing to consider here. It's not that far over the horizon, and when it comes we can forget all the present mental and religious and cultural issues that make humans 'human'. Then finally rationality will prevail. It'll certainly reduce motoring accidents at any rate...

 

A Nonny Moose "You all know that this is a tempest in a tea pot. 

 

The various agencies of the various governments have done this since two tribes lived in different caves.  The only real difference is that super-computers and the huge communications net have made it easier.  We may value our privacy, but the governments, while giving this lip service, do not.  Secret snooping is the rule not the exception. 

 

So why all the fuss?"

 

Well said. Spying arose with humanity. One cave spied upon the next and so forth. This is just reactionary paranoia about emerging tecnological progress. Luddite paranoia.

 

 

Hmm, Luddite paranoia. Maybe we should review history and find that the term does not mean what you think it means. And again, it is used as a

generality to define in a derogatory way what the opposition is trying to say. Why? because it is easier to stick to cliches and use dismissive

generalities than find out what the issue is really about.

 

 

"Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled

machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. Moreover, the idea of smashing machines as a

form of industrial protest did not begin or end with them. In truth, the secret of their enduring reputation depends less on what they did than on

the name under which they did it. You could say they were good at branding."

AND,...

As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves

“were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to

manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just

wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an

apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.” -source What the Luddites Really Fought Against

Further reading: http://ludditelink.org.uk/history.php

So tell me, How does concern that the US Foreign Intelligence agencies are violating the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens and may be

ignoring or bypassing FISA Court warrants equate to "Luddite Paranoia"?

"‎Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." -John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address: Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, Feb. 1st 1867.

[krbe 193]

So tell me, How does concern that the US Foreign Intelligence agencies are violating the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens and may be

ignoring or bypassing FISA Court warrants equate to "Luddite Paranoia"?

Because, y'know, we're all humans and as such we are not to control our creations but rather be controlled by our creations. Singularity and all that stuff. Told you some better idiot would come along and shatter your argument.

"‎Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." -John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address: Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, Feb. 1st 1867.

A, the defence for free speech, as we cannot know whether a silenced opinion is the bearer of the truth. Now, how can free speech possibly be silenced the way Mill fears by having your government snooping around all the time...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There has been a lot of complex arguments here, but the message I get is "They shouldn't do it".  But how do your propose to stop them in the face of the current police state legislation in the US.  (Patriot Act, for one).

[Cobraroll 138]

And still we compare "apples" to "oranges". Foreign Intelligence and Domestic Intelligence are two different things that use the same methods. So, let me ask you, Do the European governments also have Foreign Intelligence services? Do these services spy on citizens outside of their governments? Do these services spy on citizens within their respected nations? And do the European citizens become outraged over their own governments intrusion of their privacy? or are they just apathetic about what their governments do?

 

Again, Complaining that your own government is spying on people outside of it is NOT the same thing as Complaining that your own government is invading your privacy and misusing it powers to interfere with your life.

 

I think the main reason why so many people overseas are angry is, ultimately, because the largest media outlets in the world are American, and they report things from an American perspective. Also, in English speaking parts of the Internet, Americans tend to make up a good portion of the user base, simply because there are so many of them and they all speak the relevant language. Those facts are usually nothing to be grumpy about, it's rather that we don't like the consequences of how Internet discussions behave in the wake of a scandal such as this.

 

Most Western Internet users will get roughly equal parts of coverage of a case from their own national media, and from American media, and probably from nowhere else. American media appears to be the most vocal of them in this case (after all, it's their government who did all this), but the way they're reporting it appears to cement the idea of Americans as totally egocentric, and American media as not giving a rat's tail about other countries than their own, no matter how global the case may be. The media and the Internet are all full of "Waaaaahhh! They're spying on US! American citizens have RIGHTS, dammit! The government isn't ALLOWED to do that!". The outrage seems to stem from the fact that the NSA have been caugth spying on American citizens, whereas spying on rest-of-the-world-citizens is treated as entirely uncontroversial. Even though the scandal is as global as can be, Americans still appear to be playing the victims. The spying itself is bad enough, but the "it's only bad when done against US" attitude is what tics most people off.

"It's a violation of the Constitution and the n'th Amendment!" Well observed. It's also a violation of the equivalent laws and bills of rights of a whole bunch of other countries, but that's not a problem, right?

By the way, we'd all be just as angry if it was the Russians or the Chinese who were caught spying (and Russian/Chinese users would also still be most occupied with how the scandal affected their people, and not the foreigners). It's just that we... well, expected the US to be a little more tactful. We've grown up expecting the Russians or Chinese to snope in our emails. Then the Americans start doing it too, on a massive scale, but it's only treated as controversial because Americans were spied on in addition to people from the rest of the world.

 

 

Is this a good reason to be angry? I admit, no. I guess the Dutch would behave roughly the same if something like this happened in the Netherlands, and the Swedes would be vocal about stuff happening in Sweden. However, there are Dutch and Swedish forums where only Dutchmen and Swedes ever log in. The most vocal discussions about the case will happen there. Complaints about politicians nobody knows outside their countries of origin, references to laws only relevant to the national residents, such things are natural to bring up there, but not elsewhere. Because their language is so international, any American forum is "by default" a global forum, accessible to all international users who have some understanding of English. Consequently, some Americans treat any English-language forum as a place to bring up American politicians and American laws (such as the thread "Is this a violation of the 4th amendment" on this very site. Nobody outside the US would have any clue what that law text involves without a proper introduction). Again, because there are so many Americans on many such forums, a significant percentage of the users are fine with that, because they are American too and know what this is all about.

 

Dutchmen, Poles, Swedes, Indians and so on all have to be aware that they are a minority on most English-language forums. They are outside their national domain, and have to present their cases from an international point of view. I could never just make a thread asking if hotel plans near Sognsvann would be a violation of the Marka law. Nobody, apart from Norwegians, would have any clue what I was talking about. Make the same thread in a Norwegian forum, anybody would know, and the discussion would run hot with no further info required.

 

Long story short, in English-language forums, things tend to be discussed primarily from an American point of view. People have a tendency to discuss things depending on how it affects them, so the threads will be full of "This is an evil thing to do against Americans because...". Then the non-Americans start shouting "Hey! What about the rest of us?!?", and then quarrels erupt. Is it childish behaviour from "the rest of us"? Maybe. Still, everybody should keep in mind that the world is bigger than their own country, and the things you write will be read by people from all over the globe. And they might not all agree with your perspective.

 

Also, it's kind of our own fault, because the major services we use on the Internet, such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and such, are all American. If anybody should be snoping in their files, it's the American government. If the scandal had involved foreign sites and services as well, then we'd have a proper reason to be angry.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ Pretty good perspective on the Ugly American, eh?  You ought to be a mouse who has to sleep with an elephant next door.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And still we compare "apples" to "oranges". Foreign Intelligence and Domestic Intelligence are two different things that use the same methods. So, let me ask you, Do the European governments also have Foreign Intelligence services? Do these services spy on citizens outside of their governments? Do these services spy on citizens within their respected nations? And do the European citizens become outraged over their own governments intrusion of their privacy? or are they just apathetic about what their governments do?

 

 

 

Again, Complaining that your own government is spying on people outside of it is NOT the same thing as Complaining that your own government is invading your privacy and misusing it powers to interfere with your life.

Hmm, as far as I'm aware, European foreign intelligence services depend on the country. But I'm pretty sure non but perhaps the UK and maybe France and Germany have the capabilities to spy on the US. I'm also not sure to what extend they spy on their citizens, and how they take peoples privacy into account. 

 

EDIT: Germany has the BND as foreign intelligence service. And look at that, it was their informant that told there were WMD's in Iraq. What a great organization.

 

But really, what does it matter if my own government breaks my privacy or some other country who is spying on me? If anything Im far less comfortable with the US spying on me than the Dutch government spying on me. At least I can hold the Dutch government accountable for what they are doing with all the data they collect. I have legal recourse if I believe they went to far. But the US government? They are not accountable to me, nor can I sue them if I believe they have been spying on me for no good reason. They can literally do whatever they like, and I would not have the power to do anything about it. 

 

So yeah, there is a difference between my own government spying on me and some foreign government spying on me and the difference is that a foreign government spying on me is far far worse than if my own government does it. But in both cases, I don't have privacy. So I can pick between 'its bad'  and 'its superbad' and so far its been proven that it has been superbad for a while now. 

[timmie 988]

Also, it's kind of our own fault, because the major services we use on the Internet, such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and such, are all American. If anybody should be snoping in their files, it's the American government. If the scandal had involved foreign sites and services as well, then we'd have a proper reason to be angry.

 

 

This is an interesting remark because it is one of the fundamental problems of the internet. It is per definition a global something, so what laws apply? European countries tend to say 'if it is our citizen then our laws apply' or 'if people use your site in our country, you should comply with our rules', but you can see this poses problems. How do you enforce that? The reality shows that this is not the way things work, so how can you protect your citizens on the internet? I don't know, and neither does the government.

[simmfx 34]

Forget about Big Brother, just send in the drones....

 

Privacy Wars: Attack Of The Drones  Coming soon to your neighborhood...

 

"The FBI has admitted it uses aerial surveillance drones over US soil, and suggested further political debate and legislation to govern their domestic use may be necessary."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/19/fbi-drones-domestic-surveillance

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fbi-mueller-20130620,0,5216531.story

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"Send in the drones ...

"Don't bother, they're here"

with apologies to Steven Sondheim.

 

Get used to it folks.  Any viable technology will be employed by governments both within and without.  You all like the Internet, some like model aircraft, and the governments like both, especially the Mil Spec ones.

[AkemiAzula 280]

 

 

Wow, that's a pretty convoluted "thought experiment". Perhaps one that would explain how Europeans would feel about their own governments violating their civil rights might be better? Perhaps something about what Interpol does? What about what the Russian government does?

 

Governments spying on another governments people? How does that relate to illegal acts committed by a government on its own citizens? Or how a government given too much power can only devolve into a tyranny?

 

How do Europeans feel about their own governments spying on them? Gathering unnecessary data about their personal lives? Are they just apathetic about it all?

 

Why should the Europeans care about a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Problem is, we know the American intelligence agencies have been spying on us for decades now. ECHELON is another NSA program, capable of signal interception, including internet, and recording it. And its all aimed at Europe. Well, aimed at the rest of the world. Including Europe. It doesn't matter what European states do when it comes to privacy, its clear the US has already been gathering unnecessary data on our daily lives. And should we get mad? Why bother, the US is not going to listen to what European citizens want. We have no legal recourse, we have no laws that can protect us from the all seeing eyes of the US. 

 

But then it should come as no surprise that we also do not feel particularly sorry for Americans when it turns out they don't have much privacy left either. Welcome to the rest of the world. 

 

And still we compare "apples" to "oranges". Foreign Intelligence and Domestic Intelligence are two different things that use the same methods. So, let me ask you, Do the European governments also have Foreign Intelligence services? Do these services spy on citizens outside of their governments? Do these services spy on citizens within their respected nations? And do the European citizens become outraged over their own governments intrusion of their privacy? or are they just apathetic about what their governments do?

 

Again, Complaining that your own government is spying on people outside of it is NOT the same thing as Complaining that your own government is invading your privacy and misusing it powers to interfere with your life.

 

 

For once Lexus I am in agreement with you. Post-singularity is the big thing to consider here. It's not that far over the horizon, and when it comes we can forget all the present mental and religious and cultural issues that make humans 'human'. Then finally rationality will prevail. It'll certainly reduce motoring accidents at any rate...

 

A Nonny Moose "You all know that this is a tempest in a tea pot. 

 

The various agencies of the various governments have done this since two tribes lived in different caves.  The only real difference is that super-computers and the huge communications net have made it easier.  We may value our privacy, but the governments, while giving this lip service, do not.  Secret snooping is the rule not the exception. 

 

So why all the fuss?"

 

Well said. Spying arose with humanity. One cave spied upon the next and so forth. This is just reactionary paranoia about emerging tecnological progress. Luddite paranoia.

 

 

Hmm, Luddite paranoia. Maybe we should review history and find that the term does not mean what you think it means. And again, it is used as a

generality to define in a derogatory way what the opposition is trying to say. Why? because it is easier to stick to cliches and use dismissive

generalities than find out what the issue is really about.

 

 

"Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled

machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. Moreover, the idea of smashing machines as a

form of industrial protest did not begin or end with them. In truth, the secret of their enduring reputation depends less on what they did than on

the name under which they did it. You could say they were good at branding."

AND,...

As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves

“were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to

manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just

wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an

apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.” -source What the Luddites Really Fought Against

Further reading: http://ludditelink.org.uk/history.php

So tell me, How does concern that the US Foreign Intelligence agencies are violating the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens and may be

ignoring or bypassing FISA Court warrants equate to "Luddite Paranoia"?

"‎Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." -John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address: Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, Feb. 1st 1867.

 

Well thankyou for enlightening me about the true history of the Luddites. Anyway I'm just going to vandalise some buildings because I have a gothic view of the world and society...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Just as a matter of interest, Mark, was it really necessary to copy the entire previous post?  Couldn't you just have posted a link to it, or abbreviated it with a little <snip> editing?  Long quotes like that are not conducive to being read.

 

Oh, and modern Luddites are those that oppose progress for the sake of opposing.  Laurence J. Peter said something like "The status quo is defended by people even after the quo has lost its status".

[north country dude 205]

 

So yeah, there is a difference between my own government spying on me and some foreign government spying on me and the difference is that a foreign government spying on me is far far worse than if my own government does it. But in both cases, I don't have privacy. So I can pick between 'its bad'  and 'its superbad' and so far its been proven that it has been superbad for a while now. 

 

my point exactly, except you do have a certain amount of privacy if you are careful. You NEED a certain amount of privacy, otherwise your bank accounts would be drained, credit destroyed, and incriminating evidence plastered all over your good name and reputation if you didn't take steps to protect yourself.

 

 

Well thankyou for enlightening me about the true history of the Luddites. Anyway I'm just going to vandalise some buildings because I have a gothic view of the world and society...

 

seems you missed the point entirely and reply in the absurd. The point was that protecting your privacy has absolutely nothing to do with the current views of Luddites.

 

The truth is that if you are foolish enough to post all the details of your private life on Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., then you deserve everything a cyber-criminal can throw at you. If a cyber-criminal can do it, so can a government.

Just as a matter of interest, Mark, was it really necessary to copy the entire previous post?  Couldn't you just have posted a link to it, or abbreviated it with a little <snip> editing?  Long quotes like that are not conducive to being read.

 

Oh, and modern Luddites are those that oppose progress for the sake of opposing.  Laurence J. Peter said something like "The status quo is defended by people even after the quo has lost its status".

hmm, yes. Either he doesn't know how, or he doesn't care. I prefer to give the benefit of doubt.

 

There are many ways to protect your online privacy, in fact it becomes necessary to do so and that has absolutely nothing to do with "Luddite paranoia". The same methods used to protect you from criminals are the same ones that will protect you from government intrusion and interference. But apathetic responses like, "with todays technology you have no privacy", will leave you open to attack not just from governments, but criminals as well.

 

As far as the information you give out to commercial services, that data is supposed to be protected/encrypted. Yes, they will sell that data to other commercial enterprises, but if you get "slammed" you have a legal recourse. I know this from actual experience. I have been "slammed" for services I did not authorize or ask for, I have had my bank account drained through PayPal hacking. I got all that money back,...eventually. Now I know better how to protect myself online and keep my privacy. It can be done.

 

So, yeah, online privacy against any intrusion is a necessity no matter how advanced the technology is. In this one salient point, giving up my right to privacy is crossing the line.

[LexusInfernus 908]

my point exactly, except you do have a certain amount of privacy if you are careful. You NEED a certain amount of privacy, otherwise your bank accounts would be drained, credit destroyed, and incriminating evidence plastered all over your good name and reputation if you didn't take steps to protect yourself.

If I was careful with my privacy I wouldn't be on Facebook, or using Gmail, or using Google, or even working with Android or iOS as operating systems. Hell, if I was careful about my privacy I wouldn't even be here. Not using the internet is the only way to protect your privacy to a reasonable degree. The moment you connect to the internet though, the only thing protecting you is your relative obscurity because you are one of the many millions of people online. 

 

And trust me, anyone who is a little tech savvy can find an absurd amount of personal information just by looking up their username on a forum. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, it is getting harder and harder to safeguard yourself on the Internet.  I try by using pseudonyms in most cases.  Today, I had to fend off Google who wanted to harmonize my UTube account and make the two user names identical.  There are options to scotch that, however, which I duly invoked.  Google is getting a little too full of itself and needs a comeuppance.

 

As for my home machine, I have a virus scanner enabled at all times, a firewall, and I am required to log in with a password just to bring the machine on-line.  This is not a BIOS password, but a Linux password which I know is damned well encrypted and can't be jumpered out. 

 

Oh, yes, and then there is the general program integrity check that Linux uses every time a program is launched.  It is automatic.

 

If you do a Google search on my surname you will surely find me.  I have a web site after all, and it has the appropriate <meta> items there for all to see.

[north country dude 205]

 

my point exactly, except you do have a certain amount of privacy if you are careful. You NEED a certain amount of privacy, otherwise your bank accounts would be drained, credit destroyed, and incriminating evidence plastered all over your good name and reputation if you didn't take steps to protect yourself.

If I was careful with my privacy I wouldn't be on Facebook, or using Gmail, or using Google, or even working with Android or iOS as operating systems. Hell, if I was careful about my privacy I wouldn't even be here. Not using the internet is the only way to protect your privacy to a reasonable degree. The moment you connect to the internet though, the only thing protecting you is your relative obscurity because you are one of the many millions of people online. 

 

And trust me, anyone who is a little tech savvy can find an absurd amount of personal information just by looking up their username on a forum. 

 

Anyone who is a little tech savy would know that the "hacking" websites offer the best advice for protecting your privacy online. I tried Facebook but was inundated by "friend requests",...from people I never heard of, result? a deactivated Facebook account,(curiously they won't let me delete it). My Gmail account is a spam dump. A ruse, if you will, as the actual email account for our household is through our ISP and guess what?,..NO SPAM!

 

Google has been blocked from tracking me and the same plugin stops even this site from tracking me across "social networks"(blocked 5 websites on Simtropolis, 2 social networks and 3 commercial companies)  I use AdBlockPlus and NoScript on my browser and enable the "https everywhere" option and all the websites I go to load fast and easy.

 

I don't use Android or iOS and instead rely on a pre-paid cell phone. I don't need toys, I need reliable tools.  All the tablets and computers in this household connect to the Internet through a secure WiFi link to the Satellite modem.(there is no cable, DSL, or fibre where I live)

 

There are simple choices you can make to protect yourself from unwanted intrusion into and theft of your personal data. Yes, you can protect yourself and your privacy to a reasonable degree on the Internet by being proactive. Trust me, if you don't take a proactive view toward protecting your personal data, you will get burned. "Relative obscurity" is not a guarantee, whereas proactively guarding your privacy is.

 

Well, it is getting harder and harder to safeguard yourself on the Internet.  I try by using pseudonyms in most cases.  Today, I had to fend off Google who wanted to harmonize my UTube account and make the two user names identical.  There are options to scotch that, however, which I duly invoked.  Google is getting a little too full of itself and needs a comeuppance.

 

As for my home machine, I have a virus scanner enabled at all times, a firewall, and I am required to log in with a password just to bring the machine on-line.  This is not a BIOS password, but a Linux password which I know is damned well encrypted and can't be jumpered out. 

 

Oh, yes, and then there is the general program integrity check that Linux uses every time a program is launched.  It is automatic.

 

If you do a Google search on my surname you will surely find me.  I have a web site after all, and it has the appropriate <meta> items there for all to see.

Good advice, as for Google, check this out: Abine teams up with privacy companies and Mozilla to take a stand against NSA surveillance

 

Even if a person is nonchalant about the NSA tracking issue, you would still want to prevent intrusion from commercial sites, spam generators and identity thieves, yes?

 

I use DoNotTrackMe, would that work for your system as well?

 

@krbe: "acck thhbbtff"

[Thande 10]

If phone calls were being monitored, what makes it a concern to the average citizen? You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.