Intel official: Expect less privacy

[skinsfan999]

See rest here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_ot/terrorist_surveillance;_ylt=AsTWsa8CN5CzbjS49M2abO 8DW7oF)

WASHINGTON - As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

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, 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.

..........

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.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Until the American people start getting off their asses and turning in their friends and neighbors who act in an unpatriotic or immoral fashion; things like this are going to be necessary. Unpopular and unfortunate, but absolutely and totally necessary.

[skinsfan999]

Until the American people start getting off their asses and turning in their friends and neighbors who act in an unpatriotic or immoral fashion; things like this are going to be necessary. Unpopular and unfortunate, but absolutely and totally necessary.

If that scenario you suggest were to occur, we'd have ourselves the "witch hunt" version 2.0

[rainmkr]

Until the American people start getting off their asses and turning in their friends and neighbors who act in an unpatriotic or immoral fashion; things like this are going to be necessary. Unpopular and unfortunate, but absolutely and totally necessary.


Ok Mister McCarthy!

[ACW]

ACW to Donald Kerr: :cuss: you you American-hating traitor

[Koolblue13]

Until the American people start getting off their asses and turning in their friends and neighbors who act in an unpatriotic or immoral fashion; things like this are going to be necessary. Unpopular and unfortunate, but absolutely and totally necessary.I agree with the premise of what you're saying. Knowing you, Mass, i'm sure you're a little "off".

But, I agree non the less. Every time we have thwarted an internal "terror attack" it has been thanks to civilians and local police forces. I personally have called the FBI on somebody I was unsure about(although it was one month after 9/11 and was living in a city GWB said was going to be attacked then).

This is an attack on my life, not a defence of it.

[SUNSTONE]

I don't have a problem with spying.
But then again I'm not planning a terrorist attack.

[Koolblue13]

I don't have a problem with spying.
But then again I'm not planning a terrorist attack.

That response sucks. I'm not planning an attack either. I live on prime land in New Jersey, that may come to an ED issue. I would rather the Gov't not have any "extra" info.

Will it be used like that, maybe, maybe not. Do I trust the people who can make that decision? No.

[Corcaigh]

What safeguards are in place so that all this data collected about you won't be made available to either commercial firms or criminals? This is not far fetched, every few months some dumb government worker or contractor loses a laptop holding data with personal information on millions of citizens.

You might like to believe that increased powers and government surveillance will only affect terrorists and their sympathizers, but that is absolutely not the case.

We have already seen the Patriot Act used in a case involving copyright. Not terrorism or protecting the country, but in a copyright dispute.

How many of those who oppose gun registration are supportive of increased spying on US citizens because they don't think that they will be effected? Why do you have confidence in the government that you will be protected from negative consequences?

[Destino]

Wait wait wait... so let me get this straight. A government official is telling us that privacy should now mean whatever the government says it should mean?

Wonderful.

China becomes more of free market and the US becomes more of a fascist state. Who said there was no middle ground?

[rincewind]

Until the American people start getting off their asses and turning in their friends and neighbors who act in an unpatriotic or immoral fashion; things like this are going to be necessary. Unpopular and unfortunate, but absolutely and totally necessary.



I agree with the premise of what you're saying. Knowing you, Mass, i'm sure you're a little "off".




And who gets to decide what is patriotic and what is moral?

[Corcaigh]

And who gets to decide what is patriotic and what is moral?

Only a communist would ask such a question.

[Destino]

Until the American people start getting off their asses and turning in their friends and neighbors who act in an unpatriotic or immoral fashion; things like this are going to be necessary. Unpopular and unfortunate, but absolutely and totally necessary.
That's a fascist tactic. You have the party officials in every neighborhood and encourage neighbors to turn eachother in. Germany did it. Communists all do it. Even that loon in Venezuela recently started doing this.

[ACW]

Mass IS a fascist (or at least a quasi-fascist).

[rincewind]

Only a communist would ask such a question.


My Uncle Joe loves me. :)




That's a fascist tactic. You have the party officials in every neighborhood and encourage neighbors to turn eachother in. Germany did it. Communists all do it. Even that loon in Venezuela recently started doing this.


Its amazing how many of MSF's ideas are facist and/or communist even though he claims to hate both idealogies. :rolleyes:

[Zguy28]

All must sacrifice for the good of the people and the motherland.

[SUNSTONE]

That response sucks. I'm not planning an attack either. I live on prime land in New Jersey, that may come to an ED issue. I would rather the Gov't not have any "extra" info.

Will it be used like that, maybe, maybe not. Do I trust the people who can make that decision? No.

What's an ED issue?

[ACW]

What's an ED issue?Eminent domain maybe? :whoknows:

[rincewind]

What's an ED issue?


I think kool's having man troubles. :laugh:

[SUNSTONE]

Eminent domain maybe? :whoknows:

Is that worth more than human life?

[ACW]

Is that worth more than human life?:wtf:

[Koolblue13]

I think kool's having man troubles. :laugh:

You bastard.:silly:


Is that worth more than human life?

Can you show me where the Federal stopped one attack with information gained by invading the publics privacy?

I can show you all sorts of situations where the Fed had the info and still blew it, like 9/11.

This is an attempt to increase gov't power over the people, not to protect them. It seems to be the theme of the Bushco admin.

[DeanCollins]

I think kool's having man troubles. :laugh:

is his man cheating on him again? ;)

[SUNSTONE]

You bastard.:silly:



Can you show me where the Federal stopped one attack with information gained by invading the publics privacy?

I can show you all sorts of situations where the Fed had the info and still blew it, like 9/11.

This is an attempt to increase gov't power over the people, not to protect them. It seems to be the theme of the Bushco admin.


If spying saved one life would it be worth it?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

If spying saved one life would it be worth it?
Give me liberty or give me safety :whoknows:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

If that scenario you suggest were to occur, we'd have ourselves the "witch hunt" version 2.0

Maybe that's what we need to get this society turned around and headed in a reasonable direction again.


Ok Mister McCarthy!

You're not really insulting me by comparing me to one of the most Patriotic Americans in the post-WWII era.


And who gets to decide what is patriotic and what is moral?

We've been over that in the past, rince. Do you really want to go down that road again?


That's a fascist tactic. You have the party officials in every neighborhood and encourage neighbors to turn eachother in. Germany did it. Communists all do it. Even that loon in Venezuela recently started doing this.

It's an authoritarian tactic; which is a concept that I'm growing to agree with more and more as time goes on.


Its amazing how many of MSF's ideas are facist and/or communist even though he claims to hate both idealogies. :rolleyes:

Never said I hate fascism, just communism.

[ACW]

You're not really insulting me by comparing me to one of the most Patriotic Americans in the post-WWII era [McCarthy].:rubeyes: :twitch: :wtf::insane: :slap:

[Enter Apotheosis]

You're not really insulting me by comparing me to one of the most Patriotic Americans in the post-WWII era.

Precisely... its better to be paranoid and damning of everyone than it is to be correct and productive while in office.

[Larry]

If spying saved one life would it be worth it?

No.

[Teller]

The next president MUST fix this.


It's approaching that time to throw our entire government out on its collective ear. I'm truly not sure which is worse -- a president who has done everything in his power to subvert the Constitution, or the Congress and court system that won't hold him accountable.

Pretty comical that we're jumping all over Musharraf for suspending his country's constitution, when our own president has absolutely no regard for ours.

[ACW]

The next president MUST fix this.


It's approaching that time to throw our entire government out on its collective ear. I'm truly not sure which is worse -- a president who has done everything in his power to subvert the Constitution, or the Congress and court system that won't hold him accountable.

Pretty comical that we're jumping all over Musharraf for suspending his country's constitution, when our own president has absolutely no regard for ours.QFT. I think this says it all: http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=e30c000de80f40fd3859ef4f4d6fc80f&resize=no
:laugh:

[No_Pressure]

Until the American people start getting off their asses and turning in their friends and neighbors who act in an unpatriotic or immoral fashion; things like this are going to be necessary. Unpopular and unfortunate, but absolutely and totally necessary.

I think I read that book... 1984 right?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I think I read that book... 1984 right?

Ummm.... NO. Then again I believe we've determined that our visions for this country are very different in the past, so there's really no point in discussing this, is there?

[No_Pressure]

Ummm.... NO. Then again I believe we've determined that our visions for this country are very different in the past, so there's really no point in discussing this, is there?

I'm just saying in the book 1984 everyone in the oppressive nation's duty was to report everybody and anybody who was breaking any rule, being un-patriotic, etc. If people were caught doing these things they were killed or imprisoned.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I'm just saying in the book 1984 everyone in the oppressive nation's duty was to report everybody and anybody who was breaking any rule, being un-patriotic, etc. If people were caught doing these things they were killed or imprisoned.

In that way, yes it would be similar, though with a small curve thrown in....

If you were to be caught knowing that your neighbor or a family member was acting improperly and you DIDN'T report them, you'd be given the same penalty as they got.

[SUNSTONE]

No.

If spying saved 100 lives would it be worth it?

[Teller]

QFT. I think this says it all: http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=e30c000de80f40fd3859ef4f4d6fc80f&resize=no
:laugh:

It'd be funny if it wasn't true. :doh:

Also, to answer the "spying" question...I don't think anyone is saying we want spying stopped. All we're saying is that if you're going to surveil Americans, that you do it according to existing law: either get a warrant beforehand, or afterwards in accordance with FISA standards. You simply cannot legally conduct surveillance in this country without bringing a warrant into the equation at some point. (Nor can you legally open my mail, ***hole!!!!)

*ahem*

Sorry. :)

[GibbsFactor]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
...Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Larry]

If spying saved 100 lives would it be worth it?

No.

Now, my turn:

Exactly what is it that this spying is defending?

[Corcaigh]

It'd be funny if it wasn't true. :doh:

Also, to answer the "spying" question...I don't think anyone is saying we want spying stopped. All we're saying is that if you're going to surveil Americans, that you do it according to existing law: either get a warrant beforehand, or afterwards in accordance with FISA standards. You simply cannot legally conduct surveillance in this country without bringing a warrant into the equation at some point.

That's ridiculous; it would be impractical to apply for 300 million warrants. ;)

[Teller]

That's ridiculous; it would be impractical to apply for 300 million warrants. ;)

Again, funny as hell, had we been speaking fictionally. :doh:

[Larry]

If spying saved 100 lives would it be worth it?

No.

Here, I'll make it simpler for you.

IMO, the type of spying that's being discussed was never justified, not in any hypothetical scenario that could be artificially constructed.

Until nuclear weapons came into the picture.

But they have, and things have changed. In recognition of that fact, I do think it's time for a change. But I also think that, for the sake of preserving as many of the things which give our nation it's identity as possible, the change should be as small as possible, with as many limitations as possible.

My idea of the best balance would be:

Organizations such as the CIA and NSA would be designated as "National Security Agencies". Such agencies should be completely exempt from all Constitutional restraints on the information they gather. Anything they can get their hands on, anywhere in the world is fair game. No warrants needed, before or after. They can keep it as long as they want. Cross-reference it any way they think will help their job.

However, such agencies should be prohibited from doing anything with their information, including even revealing it, unless they find (I propose the language should be) "probable cause of an identifiable, imminent threat of an attack, of military or paramilitary scale, within the United States"

Organizations such as the FBI, DEA, and so forth, would be classified as "Law Enforcement Agencies", and would be bound by the existing Constitutional constraints.

In Larry's world, the NSA can legally monitor, record, fold, spindle, and mutilate all communications, worldwide. No warrants or probable cause needed. (What they're going to do with all the spam they collect, I don't want to know.)

They can analyze this accumulated data any way they want.

If they discover that there's some guy in Cleveland exchanging encrypted e-mail with somebody in Italy, every few weeks, they can go back through the records and pull up all of the past traffic. No warrant needed. (Not even for a US Citizen.) They can decrypt the traffic. Cross-reference the names of everybody else the guy in Cleveland is talking to. Anything they want.

If they discover that one of Saddam's former aides is offering to sell Al Qeda the location where Saddam's nukes are buried, then Mr. Clark has permission to go make both of them disappear. (Hopefully after buying the location of where the nukes are.)

OTOH (in Larry's world), if what they find is two guys swapping kiddie porn, then they're not allowed to do a thing with the information, because it was gathered by Unconstitutional means. Not even an anonymous phone call to the county sheriff.

And I really think that the definition of "National Security" needs to be tightly constrained. No "well, terrorists sometimes sell drugs to raise money". No "well, it would hurt US interests if this guy gets elected in Lebanon". No, an attack on a building in Africa that's owned by a US corporation isn't an attack on the US.

Yes, I support spying to prevent nuclear terrorism and things of similar scale. I even understand that it may well be necessary to spy on people who aren't terrorists, in order to figure out which people are terrorists. I just want to make sure that terrorists are all that's getting spied on.

[SUNSTONE]

Where in the constitution does it say you can't spy?


Why would you be against spying on criminals? Especially sex offenders, suspected serial killers, etc.?

[rincewind]

Where in the constitution does it say you can't spy?


Why would you be against spying on criminals? Especially sex offenders, suspected serial killers, etc.?


I believe the term is 'slippery slope'.




Also - the key word in your second question is 'suspected'. What happens when the person turns out to be innocent, yet just had their entire private life violated. Remember Richard Jewell?

[Larry]

Where in the constitution does it say you can't spy?

1) Are you really that ignorant? Or is this just your idea of a clever debating tactic?

How about we try this part:


Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Why would you be against spying on criminals? Especially sex offenders, suspected serial killers, etc.?

1) I'm against it for the same reason the Framers were against it.

2) Now, if somebody's a suspected (whatever), then gee, the framers provided a procedure for that. Go to a judge. Say "Judge, we think this guy is a (whetever), and here's why". And the judge either says "Yep, I agree. They guy probably is a (whatever)"" or he doesn't.

But "I want to spy on every person in the country, just in case they say or do something that might turn out to be important later" ain't in there.

[SUNSTONE]

Well it also says in the constitution that we have the right to bear arms, but that has also been changed, and for good reason. Can you imagine these school shootings with a fully automatic weapon???

I think something similar should be done with spying.
If it saves lives, I think it's a good thing.

Besides I don't have anything to hide.

[ACW]

If it saves lives, I think it's a good thing.Well why don't we just lock everyne up in jail, in solitary confinment then. After all, that would save lives :rolleyes:


Besides I don't have anything to hide.I hate this argument. Besides the slippery slope factor, maybe people are doing things that they might not want known (porn :paranoid: )

[Corcaigh]

Besides I don't have anything to hide.

The Patriot Act has already been used to gain access to private data in a copyright dispute.

Are you really happy with unknown government officials having access to all your private data?