Big Brother Is Spying On You!

[AkemiAzula 280]

Yes this means any official working for the government could tap into our private conversations. But if our conversations are honest and we don't speak about how much we enjoy flouting the law and planning bomb attacks...

 

I still stand by 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'. I imagine they'd have supervision of the spies. The very eavesdroppers would be eavesdropped upon by inspectors. I doubt much would get by of a serious nature. Besides better to be at risk of some random knowing your allergic to prawns than some random exploding your workplace to serve their God...

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Many things have been perfectly legal one day, and not the next. The problem with the whole 'if you've done nothing wrong' argument is, you aren't always the one who decides what is wrong or illegal. The Tea Party organizations did nothing illegal, that didn't stop the IRS from discriminating against and harassing them. And what did adoptive parents do to be flooded with audits suddenly, about the same time? Is it because adoptive parents are often religious? 

 

And why did leftist groups get a free pass, with a blind eye turned to blatant and frequent violations of existing laws? 

 

Your argument doesn't hold water. I'm guessing you're still young yet. You haven't yet seen how the power of gov't isn't often used fairly, nor is it always directed against actual 'evildoers'. It is used capriciously, arbitrarily, and with subjective malice far too often. That's why, at least in the US, it is limited with the strongest and clearest means possible, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those founding documents were grossly ignored by the IRS, the Dept Of Injustice, the NSA, and God knows how many other alphabet-soup gov't agencies with more power than they were ever meant to have under the law.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I read about this on CNN. Scary stuff! This also shows another obvious sign of the corruption of the government and corruption and decadence are two clear symptoms of an upcoming collapse of civilization. --Ocram

[Meg 368]

Many things have been perfectly legal one day, and not the next. The problem with the whole 'if you've done nothing wrong' argument is, you aren't always the one who decides what is wrong or illegal.

 

When laws are selectively enforced, it is dangerous to all of us.  They might select you one day and me the next.

 

This guy who says he had the authority to wiretap anyone -- he is not an "official".  He is a civilian contractor.    The way he tells it, he didn't have to get anyone's approval; he could wiretap anyone he felt like wiretapping.

 

We don't know that the IRS employees had this level of autonomy.  I suspect they did because any word from on-high would have been met with objections.  US government workers are forbidden by law from discussing politics at work.  [Hatch Act]   so they shouldn't know where their co-workers fall on the political spectrum.  Often, it's not that difficult to tell which is one reason that religious discussions are strongly discouraged.

 

Bottom line is:  who is targeted can change with the wind.  It's best that the ammunition doesn't exist.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

With respect to legal today and not tomorrow:  The Volstead act is a good example.  Gin today, soda water tomorrow.

[hym 358]

Yes this means any official working for the government could tap into our private conversations. But if our conversations are honest and we don't speak about how much we enjoy flouting the law and planning bomb attacks...

 

I still stand by 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'. I imagine they'd have supervision of the spies. The very eavesdroppers would be eavesdropped upon by inspectors. I doubt much would get by of a serious nature. Besides better to be at risk of some random knowing your allergic to prawns than some random exploding your workplace to serve their God...

 

Out of curiosity, what if the data that the NSA is capturing contains legally privileged information?  (Information that is considered so confidential even the government isn't allowed to see it.)

[AkemiAzula 280]

 

Yes this means any official working for the government could tap into our private conversations. But if our conversations are honest and we don't speak about how much we enjoy flouting the law and planning bomb attacks...

 

I still stand by 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'. I imagine they'd have supervision of the spies. The very eavesdroppers would be eavesdropped upon by inspectors. I doubt much would get by of a serious nature. Besides better to be at risk of some random knowing your allergic to prawns than some random exploding your workplace to serve their God...

 

Out of curiosity, what if the data that the NSA is capturing contains legally privileged information?  (Information that is considered so confidential even the government isn't allowed to see it.)

 

Any information the Government doesn't have authorisation to see exists in an alternate reality called Doesn'texistworld. The Government requires data to perform its function, remember. In Simcity if I didn't have all those graphs before me I'd only be able to go by the 'feel' of the streets, which would lead to aesthetic decision making, not reflecting the actual realities of economics.

 

At any rate I am certainly not suggesting it would make sense for government employees to look up your health records or what have you, but if you were a criminal then by all means let them. Who is bored enough to want to tap into some random's conversations about their medical condition or marital status? If I wanted to persecute adulterers or wipe out people with a certain genetic disorder I'd analyse impersonal graphs with totals and where the problem was arising, not fire silver bullets into vampires.

 

Any operational government has to consider trends and patterns, not individual scenarios. Individuals are meaningless unless part of a demographic, or acting extremely anomalously as in terrorists. 

[Cobraroll 138]

A hypothetical scenario would be a tyrannical government collecting a little personal information from even law-abiding citizens, to have some dirty little secrets to use against them should the need arise in the future. You never know who will become an activist in a pressed situation. In case of legal demonstrations, the law limits the duration of an eventual imprisonment. What if the government wanted to keep all the demonstrants behind bars for a little longer, until the riots die down and the government regain control? Then they could refer to earlier tax evasion or support of illegal organizations, dubious contact with foreigners, etc. If they know enough about people, they will always find something worth arresting them for.

 

Or information can be used for blackmailing. A tyrannical government (or even just a corrupt head of some department of a "nice" government) would have certain interests to protect, and if you as a businessman threaten those, he might want to make you reconsider your actions. Everybody has a secret or two they don't want the world to know.

 

In short, even as a law abiding citizen, you shouldn't feel too comfortable being surveilled by the powers that be. Even Facebook, while not a government, has a lot of potential power to affect the lives of single individuals. They have all the info they need.

[timmie 988]

"The United Stasi of America"

Today in my newspaper. I kinda like the expression.

[hym 358]

Any information the Government doesn't have authorisation to see exists in an alternate reality called Doesn'texistworld. The Government requires data to perform its function, remember.

 

Yes, the government does require information, but that doesn't mean it gets to have whatever information it wants whenever it wants it.  (The requirement that a search warrant be obtained before police may search one's property, for instance.)

 

Returning back to the original question, there is information that is considered legally privileged to the point that the government does not get to look at it.  One might be more familiar with the concept "attorney-client privilege." In short, information disclosed under attorney-client privilege is considered confidential from that point until the end of eternity.  (According to the Supreme Court, even death of the client is not sufficient to remove the privilege.)

 

So considering that email is tool for communication between attorneys and their clients, what happens when the NSA begins sucking all of that information into its records?  Does the "if you're not doing anything wrong..." argument hold up when the law says that the information is off limits for government use?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Privileged lawyer/client, physician/patient information should never be on the Internet in the first place.  There is still the U.S. Snail or a courier service.  The government is certainly welcome to collect any meta data from such communications as they can find.  Courier service kind of defeats that, as well.  There are a few times when trees must be sacrificed when real confidentiality must be maintained.

[simmfx 34]

The problem is that when the government grows beyond the constraints of what it was designed for, it will become corrupt. We are seeing that fact become reality in the IRS targeting scandal, the NSA overstretching it's authority, along with all

 

the scandals the White House is currently involved in.

 

CNN just released the latest poll this morning of which the same poll taken in 2012 had 46% not trusting the government when it comes to general populous of personal privacy. This morning numbers now show that number has become a

 

majority of 56% who no longer trust the government in relation to to that issue and personal liberties as defined by the Constitution and I imagine that before this disaster blows over, that number will very rapidly climb even much higher.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Again, freedom is not free.  Rulers who infringe freedom in the name of security are on the edge of tyranny.

[AkemiAzula 280]

" If they know enough about people, they will always find something worth arresting them for."

 

And thus they did have something to hide...

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

" If they know enough about people, they will always find something worth arresting them for."

 

And thus they did have something to hide...

 

is that really still your stance? I'm sorry, I just find your cavalier attitude towards personal privacy and civil liberties to be quite shocking. Let's use a favorite leftist pop culture reference; going back to V For Vendetta. Being gay isn't illegal.

 

Let's say some new regime decides it is.

 

How do you find the gay people in large numbers in the most efficient means possible. Do you send out swarms of agents to watch every red-light district bar and back alley?

 

Or do you just data-mine for those visiting gay websites, having conversations with gay lovers on the phone, and buying amyl nitrate online?

 

Now, let's say it's not made illegal to be gay; but some Treasury agent or other gov't lackey decides to carry out a vendetta of his own. He has the power to do exactly that kind of data-mining from his desk at some sterile bureaucracy. Then he starts flagging people for tax audits, or special scrutiny of their online purchases, or if they bought a tax tag for their dog.

 

They must have had something to hide, right? They're just screwed, by your logic. They have no recourse, nor do they deserve any. Face it, that's what you are trying to say.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It all comes down to an old Roman saying "Qui ipsos custodes custodiet?"  {Who will watch the watchers?}.

 

In Canada our snoopers have an oversight committee that reports to Parliament.  In the U.S. it seems the Executive Branch can do as it damn pleases.  Checks and balances?  Where?

[AkemiAzula 280]

 

" If they know enough about people, they will always find something worth arresting them for."

 

And thus they did have something to hide...

 

is that really still your stance? I'm sorry, I just find your cavalier attitude towards personal privacy and civil liberties to be quite shocking. Let's use a favorite leftist pop culture reference; going back to V For Vendetta. Being gay isn't illegal.

 

Let's say some new regime decides it is.

 

How do you find the gay people in large numbers in the most efficient means possible. Do you send out swarms of agents to watch every red-light district bar and back alley?

 

Or do you just data-mine for those visiting gay websites, having conversations with gay lovers on the phone, and buying amyl nitrate online?

 

Now, let's say it's not made illegal to be gay; but some Treasury agent or other gov't lackey decides to carry out a vendetta of his own. He has the power to do exactly that kind of data-mining from his desk at some sterile bureaucracy. Then he starts flagging people for tax audits, or special scrutiny of their online purchases, or if they bought a tax tag for their dog.

 

They must have had something to hide, right? They're just screwed, by your logic. They have no recourse, nor do they deserve any. Face it, that's what you are trying to say.

 

There is no economic incentive or logic behind persecuting gays. That is a moral question not a financial one. Gays pay taxes. And I am not being 'cavalier', I am merely finding it hard to believe that in this day and age of OH and S and regulation red tape that any government could get away with, or should wish to attempt to get away with, abusing such powers for no real gain. If I was in government I'd gain nothing by abusing my power, and people would stop voting for me, so I'd be forced to cease anyway.

[LexusInfernus 908]

is that really still your stance? I'm sorry, I just find your cavalier attitude towards personal privacy and civil liberties to be quite shocking. Let's use a favorite leftist pop culture reference; going back to V For Vendetta. Being gay isn't illegal.

 

Let's say some new regime decides it is.

 

How do you find the gay people in large numbers in the most efficient means possible. Do you send out swarms of agents to watch every red-light district bar and back alley?

 

Or do you just data-mine for those visiting gay websites, having conversations with gay lovers on the phone, and buying amyl nitrate online?

 

Now, let's say it's not made illegal to be gay; but some Treasury agent or other gov't lackey decides to carry out a vendetta of his own. He has the power to do exactly that kind of data-mining from his desk at some sterile bureaucracy. Then he starts flagging people for tax audits, or special scrutiny of their online purchases, or if they bought a tax tag for their dog.

 

They must have had something to hide, right? They're just screwed, by your logic. They have no recourse, nor do they deserve any. Face it, that's what you are trying to say.

 

The problems you mention do not stem from the government tracking meta data (yes, meta data, the same as what Steam, Origin, Microsoft, etc have been doing for years). Instead, those abuses by the government come from the government overstepping its bound by going after actual liberties. In the case of gays, the liberty to have sex with whomever you please in your own bedroom. Thats a freedom. But simply tracking meta data? That by itself is not hurting anyone's freedom. 

[hym 358]

The problems you mention do not stem from the government tracking meta data (yes, meta data, the same as what Steam, Origin, Microsoft, etc have been doing for years).

 

A key difference here is that the companies explained in a Terms of Service document (or something similar) that they collect usage data and by using the service, you consent to the monitoring.  The NSA neither informed anyone that it was doing this, nor did it obtain consent of the monitored.

 

There is also the fact that very little metadata about someone is sufficient to determine that individual's identity with a very high degree of accuracy. Link

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

 

 

" If they know enough about people, they will always find something worth arresting them for."

 

And thus they did have something to hide...

 

is that really still your stance? I'm sorry, I just find your cavalier attitude towards personal privacy and civil liberties to be quite shocking. Let's use a favorite leftist pop culture reference; going back to V For Vendetta. Being gay isn't illegal.

 

Let's say some new regime decides it is.

 

How do you find the gay people in large numbers in the most efficient means possible. Do you send out swarms of agents to watch every red-light district bar and back alley?

 

Or do you just data-mine for those visiting gay websites, having conversations with gay lovers on the phone, and buying amyl nitrate online?

 

Now, let's say it's not made illegal to be gay; but some Treasury agent or other gov't lackey decides to carry out a vendetta of his own. He has the power to do exactly that kind of data-mining from his desk at some sterile bureaucracy. Then he starts flagging people for tax audits, or special scrutiny of their online purchases, or if they bought a tax tag for their dog.

 

They must have had something to hide, right? They're just screwed, by your logic. They have no recourse, nor do they deserve any. Face it, that's what you are trying to say.

 

There is no economic incentive or logic behind persecuting gays. That is a moral question not a financial one. Gays pay taxes. And I am not being 'cavalier', I am merely finding it hard to believe that in this day and age of OH and S and regulation red tape that any government could get away with, or should wish to attempt to get away with, abusing such powers for no real gain. If I was in government I'd gain nothing by abusing my power, and people would stop voting for me, so I'd be forced to cease anyway.

 

 

where is the economic or logical incentive to persecute conservatives, or adoptive parents? Where would it be in giving the other side of the political spectrum no such harassment?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

 

" If they know enough about people, they will always find something worth arresting them for."

 

And thus they did have something to hide...

 

is that really still your stance? I'm sorry, I just find your cavalier attitude towards personal privacy and civil liberties to be quite shocking. Let's use a favorite leftist pop culture reference; going back to V For Vendetta. Being gay isn't illegal.

 

Let's say some new regime decides it is.

 

How do you find the gay people in large numbers in the most efficient means possible. Do you send out swarms of agents to watch every red-light district bar and back alley?

 

Or do you just data-mine for those visiting gay websites, having conversations with gay lovers on the phone, and buying amyl nitrate online?

 

Now, let's say it's not made illegal to be gay; but some Treasury agent or other gov't lackey decides to carry out a vendetta of his own. He has the power to do exactly that kind of data-mining from his desk at some sterile bureaucracy. Then he starts flagging people for tax audits, or special scrutiny of their online purchases, or if they bought a tax tag for their dog.

 

They must have had something to hide, right? They're just screwed, by your logic. They have no recourse, nor do they deserve any. Face it, that's what you are trying to say.

 

There is no economic incentive or logic behind persecuting gays. That is a moral question not a financial one. Gays pay taxes. And I am not being 'cavalier', I am merely finding it hard to believe that in this day and age of OH and S and regulation red tape that any government could get away with, or should wish to attempt to get away with, abusing such powers for no real gain. If I was in government I'd gain nothing by abusing my power, and people would stop voting for me, so I'd be forced to cease anyway.

 

I don't think one can possibly understand the idea of the abuse of power for some private agenda.  Maybe this guy gets his rocks off by making people suffer, however indirectly.  {Giggle, giggle, that'll fix'em.}  Good psychological screening for people in such positions means that there must be no deviants of any kind in such positions.  No sadists, especially, and no holier than thou moralists either.  What is needed in these positions is a person who can walk a mile in anyone's shoes.

 

Do you think that if Gay Edgar Hoover was still around, open gay rights would exist in the U.S.?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

there are holier-than-thou moralists among the gay community, as well. I have seen it with my own eyes. They're the ones screaming 'shame shame' at everyone who doesn't agree with them. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

 

As for Hoover, he would go to any lengths to hide his own pecadilloes. He did, after all, have the largest collection of pornography in the US. I sincerely doubt it was all for research purposes, or part of an evidence locker. He also was not above blackmail, which seems to have set the tone for gov't power in the modern age.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Interesting how he stayed in the closet until after his death.  Poor psychotic lad, he was as gay as the flowers in May.  This is an example of a highly placed snivel serpent with many a private agenda.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

 Poor psychotic lad, he was as gay as the flowers in May.  

 

LOL

 

To quote the immortal Rip Torn in an obscure movie named Rolling Kansas; "... well, I'm just as gay as a dancing bear".

[Otakumatic 0]

I may be sort of "socialist" myself (I do agree with some socialism ideas but I'd never consider myself a full one), but this is just too much.

 

We should have a certain level of privacy, but DRM/always online on the Xbox/the NSA leaks is over the line in my opinion. If what the government says is true, that the call records only show minimal info, I'm fine with that. BUT, if they are lying, I'm NOT OK with that. To be honest, it's also ridiculous what they're doing with piracy also. Remember when Comcast blocked BitTorrent traffic for a while? I agree, that all info on the net should be open as long as it doesn't violate the law, but Comcast was just stereotyping that torrents are only of illegal content, which is not true, though a majority of it is. Governments and companies need to realize they do NOT need to know all about us. There's my two cents.

 

And for my political sides, I'm mostly Democrat with a small bit of socialism. I used to consider myself conservative, but with all the negativity in that part, along with it not fitting into my attitude, as I am very liberal with many things, I changed over. As for the socialism, it's mostly like they have in Europe but with a lot more freedoms.

[timmie 988]

I really fail to see how an all-seeing government that cannot be held accountable is socialist. It is not. It is authoritarian. Right-wing authoritarianism is as much a possibility as left-wing authoritarianism.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Governments and companies need to realize they do NOT need to know all about us. 

Information is power. And the internet has given us wonderful new ways to gather information on so many things at such a high level. Governments have no choice but to take part of this. If they don't, others will. It is vital for the security of the state that it knows as much as possible. 

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

“If I know every single phone call you’ve made, I’m able to determine every single person you’ve talked to; I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here, is what do they do with this information that they collect – that does not have anything to do with al-Qaeda? And we’re gonna trust the president and the vice president that they’re doing the right thing? Don’t count me in on that.” 

 

~Sen. Joe Biden, May 12, 2006

 

Edit: then there's this-

 

House committee looks into IRS seizure of 60 million medical records  http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/12/house-committee-looks-into-irs-seizure-of-60-million-medical-records/#ixzz2W20nZUII

[AkemiAzula 280]

But seriously the chance that your private life will be the amusement of a rogue government employee is slim, very slim indeed. The potential benefits of being able to catch criminals and terrorists far outweigh any silly 'privacy' ideals. There's millions of Americans. They can't spy on you all at once. Only a selected few targets would be considered worthy of that sort of surveillance. I think it will remain safe to mention your deep mistrust of Obama to your friend over the phone for a while now.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

But seriously the chance that your private life will be the amusement of a rogue government employee is slim, very slim indeed. The potential benefits of being able to catch criminals and terrorists far outweigh any silly 'privacy' ideals. There's millions of Americans. They can't spy on you all at once. Only a selected few targets would be considered worthy of that sort of surveillance. I think it will remain safe to mention your deep mistrust of Obama to your friend over the phone for a while now.

 

uh, I think when you collect several trillion phone calls each year, trillions of emails, tens of millions of medical records, and hundreds of millions of credit card records... they sure are spying on us all at once. None of these involved a warrant, as prescribed by the Constitution.

 

And when the privacy ideals codified in US Federal law are 'silly', we have the exact situation we're looking at. You don't happen to work for the NSA, do you? 

 

You know that giving up your liberties doesn't buy you security, right?