Am I the only one who has a problem with this type of thinking? I think it's time to re-educate EVERYONE on what principles our country was founded on, and WHY our Constitution is laid out the way it is.

Quote :

" WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States change their definition of privacy. art.kerr.jpg Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, wants Americans to redefine privacy. Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information. Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil in order to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels. The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007. Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission. Don't Miss * Telecoms that helped warrantless spying could get off hook * Surveillance bill on hold after GOP maneuver * Bush: Surveillance bill must not hamper fight against terrorism The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping suits are pending. The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco, California. Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action suit, claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S. The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant immunity from suits such as this one. Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails and listen to their phone calls without court oversight. Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio, Texas, that he finds it odd that some would be concerned that the government may be listening in when people are "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an [Internet service provider] who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data." He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information. Millions of people in this country -- particularly young people -- already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers. "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that." "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but [also] what safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere." Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy laws and American history. "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it together." Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service. "There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy." "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,"' he said. "

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/11/terrorist.surveillance.ap/index.html

11/12/2007 1:33:24 AM

you're a terrorist

11/12/2007 3:02:24 AM

My take on Privacy as it relates to the Constitution:
It's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for a reason. The founding fathers wouldn't have just forgotten about it.

In our current system our privacy is generally protected from the government... but it is NOT PROTECTED FROM BUSINESSES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. The fact that we fear government invasion into our lives is silly compared to the degree with which private companies can do the same thing and more. Credit card companies and the like can find out a person's history, records, and contact information within a matter of minutes. This disturbs me much more than any potential wiretappings and such that the CIA might do. Our privacy should first be more protected from others before we start worrying about invasion by the government.

11/12/2007 4:06:44 AM

just like how they didn't forget about black rights or women rights or 20+ other changes, "amendments," if you will

11/12/2007 4:12:06 AM

^You should know there's a difference. And when I said the original Constitution, I also meant the Bill of Rights, considering how close together the two were.

11/12/2007 4:15:21 AM

I should know there is a difference? what kind of fucking idiotic argument is that. The only difference is that one example inconveniently blocks you from making a retarded argument about the other example.

11/12/2007 5:00:50 AM

How in the world can you compare corporate invasion of privacy (last time i checked, microsoft wasn't tapping my phone) with government invasion of privacy??

Even if Coca Cola were able to pull my library records, they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing to me besides figure out how better to advertise to me. The government, on the other hand, could lock me up indefinitely while they torture me to admit I am a terrorist.

11/12/2007 8:50:36 AM

yeah - that's the main point between government vs. private sector invasions of privacy. For the most part, when corporations gather your private data (that you usually willingly supply them, but are sometimes unscrupulously gathered and/or sold), they are doing to in order to sell or advertise something to you. An annoyance, yes, but not particularly dangerous, at least at face value.

But the government has law enforcement on its side and can choose to detain or bring charges against a person based on the information they gather. Furthermore, as we've seen in the past couple years, some branches of the government feel they can act above and outside normal laws to pursue people - actions that are virtually unpublishable, at least as long as the other branches of government continue to sit around with thumbs up their asses.

Of course the even bigger threat, though, is when corporations and the government start working together, or corporations roll over and hand over anything the government requests for fear of being publicly labeled "unpatriotic", as we've also seen in the past few years.

11/12/2007 9:45:16 AM

Quote :

"Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, wants Americans to redefine privacy."

Since when does a unelected bureaucrat get to define something as precious as our privacy?

11/12/2007 10:30:33 AM

Quote :

"Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, wants Americans to redefine privacy. Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information."

I am sure Stalin thought the same thing during the great purge and hitler too after the Reichstag fire.

Quote :

"In our current system our privacy is generally protected from the government... but it is NOT PROTECTED FROM BUSINESSES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS."

Except coca-cola and Chase financial can not throw my ass in Gitmo prison and toss away the key in the name of "national security"

I honestly think some of you douchenozzles would be the ones supporting Mussolini and Hitler had you been born back in the 1930's and living in Italy/Germany

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 10:44 AM. Reason : a]

11/12/2007 10:44:20 AM

Quote :

"had you been born back in the 1930's and living in Italy/Germany"

bahahaha, nice qualifier

hey i bet you would have supported slavery if you were born in the south during the early 1800s to a rich white plantation owning family

11/12/2007 11:01:36 AM

someone has to pick that cotton

11/12/2007 11:06:15 AM

Quote :

"Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information."

So I'm sure Mr. Kerr won't have any qualms about telling the government what size his penis is, how many sexual partners he's had in his lifetime and whether or not they were male or female, what sorts of food and beverages he buys, etc. That sort of information could be crucial to identifying the terrorists. In fact, if the government decides tomorrow that anybody who receives questionably large sums of money is a terrorist, I'm sure Mr. Kerr won't object to handing over his PIN numbers so that Big Brother can monitor anything that goes into and out of all his bank accounts. And if the government decides that it's evidence, it can then seize every last penny. After all, it's for the safety and security of the country! You've got nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide.

Privacy refers to things that are NOBODY'S business but your own. In that respect, privacy requires a bit of anonymity and secrecy. I would submit that there is a need for some government/regulation in daily society, but one of the places where it does not belong is in the privacy of people's homes and thoughts. It's ridiculous (but perhaps no longer unbelievable) that somebody is even having to ask this of the American people. It's stupid shit like this that convinces me that the terrorists already won.

11/12/2007 12:30:17 PM

excellent post, and you made the biggest point:

"if the government decides"

i'm not saying government is inherently evil. what i AM saying is that history has shown that government tends to try and control the population rather than govern the population. it's the fucking REASON why our constitution was written the way it was, it's spelled out in the federalist papers, and all other writings of the time. and it's a trend that's been happening since Truman was in office. It's called unitary executive theory, aka imperial presidency. read up on it. it's pretty angering stuff.

11/12/2007 12:33:24 PM

not arguing for or against the war on drugs but already the powers granted to the federal gov't to fight the war terror have already been abused to invade the privacy of the avg american lives in order to fight the the war on drugs

11/12/2007 1:05:45 PM

so, if we change the definition of "privacy," does that mean we can go back to outlawing abortion again?

11/12/2007 7:56:44 PM

Maybe if you redefine abortion as well

11/12/2007 8:23:23 PM

Quote :

"My take on Privacy as it relates to the Constitution: It's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for a reason. The founding fathers wouldn't have just forgotten about it"

Quote :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

The 4th amendment has been generally interpreted to guard the right of privacy between parties who do not give consent to monitoring.


The real question, in an increasingly networked world, is if privacy is even possible?

11/12/2007 11:56:17 PM

Quote :

"The real question, in an increasingly networked world, is if privacy is even possible?"

all the more reason we should make every effort to keep certain data as private as possible, and for the government to enact laws to protect that data instead of exploiting it.

11/13/2007 12:13:02 AM