A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of 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 safeguards people's private communications and financial information.

 

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence 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.

 

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 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.

 

The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies.

 

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.

 

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.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071111/D8SRJ1DO0.html

I don't want to be that guy that posts the "He who would give up freedom for liberty, etc." quote, but yeah.

Why the hell do I care if some government agent is reading my e-mail or listening to my calls? I have nothing to hide.

Why the hell do I care if some government agent is reading my e-mail or listening to my calls? I have nothing to hide.

There are certain powers that the government should not have. In nearly every writing from the revolutionary era, the founders repeatedly argued against giving the government too much power. Why? Two reasons. 1) Because it is the nature of government to use power for its own benefit against the citizens and 2) because once they possess power, we as citizens will not get it back.

 

Now, even if this current government is completely honest, well-intentioned and perfect (something I don't buy into at all, but say for the sake of argument), there remains the question about future administrations. By giving the government the legal authority to invade or privacy, we allow future individuals to use that power against us. Judging by human nature, at some point abuse of that power is inevitable.

 

In the grand scheme of things, it's not worth it.

this is the same imo as quartering troops inside of a house via force

 

bad bad thing

Why the hell do I care if some government agent is reading my e-mail or listening to my calls? I have nothing to hide.

 

sigh....

Why the hell do I care if some government agent is reading my e-mail or listening to my calls? I have nothing to hide.

Scott, you just don't get it, do you?

I definitely see how people are bothered by this, and I certainly understand where you are coming from and why this troubles you. However, in this day and age of terror, this can be a useful way of keeping us safe. And I disagree with Ben Franklin. In the year 2000, in order to ensure the existence of America in the year 2100, we need to be willing to give up a little liberty for a little security. Not doing so will ensure we loose both.

I don't want to be that guy that posts the "He who would give up freedom for liberty, etc." quote, but yeah.

I'd post something like that, but instead I'll post how I really feel about this:

 

f*** f*** f***ITY f*** BOB SAGGET CHICKEN f*** sh*t ASS COCK f***ERS!!!!

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was talking to a child, but anyone who feels that way can't really understand the basic tenets of this country and might need very basic things explained to them.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was talking to a child, but anyone who feels that way can't really understand the basic tenets of this country and might need very basic things explained to them.

Bingo.

 

First of all, terrorists aren't a big enough threat to justify this. If we could still have rights during the Cold War, you better believe we can have them now.

Why the hell do I care if some government agent is reading my e-mail or listening to my calls? I have nothing to hide.

 

I don't have anything to hide (except my gayness) but I care because I do not live in the USSR.

 

The USA is evolving from the land of the free to the land of the so-called safe.

 

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather be free.

Why the hell do I care if some government agent is reading my e-mail or listening to my calls? I have nothing to hide.

 

I don't have anything to hide (except my gayness) but I care because I do not live in the USSR.

 

The USA is evolving from the land of the free to the land of the so-called safe.

 

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather be free.

 

 

 

I've been arguing this damn point since 2001, when we all just gave away a number of freedoms carte blanche all in the name of 'safety'

I think more and more people are coming around to the idea that there's more to America than just being safe. I don't think people are as receptive to the idea of giving away freedom for safety as they were even a couple years ago. As the lies of the current administration have piled up, and the abuses of executive power, I think a lot of people (maybe not a majority, but a lot of people) have come to accept the idea that this is a bargain that isn't worth it because this country is in danger of losing the qualities that make it great. I hope so anyway.

 

Anyone watch the people sacrificing their lives in the name of freedom and democracy in places like Pakistan and wonder to themselves how we could possibly be giving this stuff away? I do all the time.

The way to win the war on terror is to eliminate as many terrorists without creating any new ones. While invading foreign countries certainly takes out terrorists, it also creates new ones. Any way to track terrorists without their knowledge is essential to diminishing the threat. I really don't get what a difference it makes if your freedoms are getting violated if you don't realize it. What I don't know can't hurt me. This is the way the advert disasters. To say you'd be willing to risk your life to keep the Feds off your phone is ridiculous. We must do what ever it takes to protect our nation (of course within reason). If we do not do so we will not only loose our security, but our freedom, and possibly our nation. We are in war. This is what war is about... making sacrifices for your nation. If the way I can help my nation is by allowing someone to tape my conversations, then listen away.

I really don't get what a difference it makes if your freedoms are getting violated if you don't realize it. What I don't know can't hurt me.

:| !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And for the record, what does "within reason" mean?

I really don't get what a difference it makes if your freedoms are getting violated if you don't realize it. What I don't know can't hurt me.

:| !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And for the record, what does "within reason" mean?

 

It's relative to what Rush, Hannity, and G-Dub say.

What I don't know can't hurt me.

 

 

Seriously I'm on the verge of moving this to the Locker Room.

reason = common sense. Tapping phones is one thing. Placing all American Muslims in a ghetto is another thing

The way to win the war on terror is to eliminate as many terrorists without creating any new ones. While invading foreign countries certainly takes out terrorists, it also creates new ones. Any way to track terrorists without their knowledge is essential to diminishing the threat. I really don't get what a difference it makes if your freedoms are getting violated if you don't realize it. What I don't know can't hurt me. This is the way the advert disasters. To say you'd be willing to risk your life to keep the Feds off your phone is ridiculous. We must do what ever it takes to protect our nation (of course within reason). If we do not do so we will not only loose our security, but our freedom, and possibly our nation. We are in war. This is what war is about... making sacrifices for your nation. If the way I can help my nation is by allowing someone to tape my conversations, then listen away.

You have way, way, way too much faith in the good intentions of people in power. What have you seen in your life--or even just over the course of this administration--that would lead you to believe that these extra powers wouldn't continue to grow and be abused? Things that are justified in the name of fighting terrorism can be used for all sorts of dirty projects. And, naturally, the current administration has been doing everything they can to remove the power of oversight from the courts.

reason = common sense. Tapping phones is one thing. Placing all American Muslims in a ghetto is another thing

Except that it's a slippery slope.

 

There has been phone tapping in the past, and the authorities were able to arrest criminals and spies without having to just wiretap everyone for no reason. The laws don't need to be changed.

The way to win the war on terror is to eliminate as many terrorists without creating any new ones. While invading foreign countries certainly takes out terrorists, it also creates new ones. Any way to track terrorists without their knowledge is essential to diminishing the threat. I really don't get what a difference it makes if your freedoms are getting violated if you don't realize it. What I don't know can't hurt me. This is the way the advert disasters. To say you'd be willing to risk your life to keep the Feds off your phone is ridiculous. We must do what ever it takes to protect our nation (of course within reason). If we do not do so we will not only loose our security, but our freedom, and possibly our nation. We are in war. This is what war is about... making sacrifices for your nation. If the way I can help my nation is by allowing someone to tape my conversations, then listen away.

 

 

 

You know this is what we fought that little war in the late 18th century to avert right?

I definitely see how people are bothered by this, and I certainly understand where you are coming from and why this troubles you. However, in this day and age of terror, this can be a useful way of keeping us safe. And I disagree with Ben Franklin. In the year 2000, in order to ensure the existence of America in the year 2100, we need to be willing to give up a little liberty for a little security. Not doing so will ensure we loose both.

What day and age of terror are you talking about? Is the notion of people killing one another a new thing? You have been completely brain washed by an administration that used the events of one tragic day as a subversive ploy to accumulate power for themselves, so they can implement their own policies without being questioned or hindered.

reason = common sense. Tapping phones is one thing. Placing all American Muslims in a ghetto is another thing

Who defines common sense?