Author Topic: Intelligence official: Time to redefine 'privacy' (Read 796 times)

Sundowner · « **on:** November 12, 2007, 04:48:28 AM »

Heck, let's just go ahead and redefine 'freedom' while we're at it.

Regards,
Sun

Intelligence official: Time to redefine 'privacy'

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.

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.........

..... 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 sites such as this one....

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

lazs2 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 12, 2007, 09:36:43 AM »

sundowner.. what is the origin of your avatar?

I think that anything you say on the phone or in an email should never be considered to be private but.. should never be able to be used against you in court. I have never considered them to be that secure.

lazs

acfireguy26 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 12, 2007, 10:04:06 AM »

If you are not engaged in criminal activety what is there to worry about. We must adapt to the changing tactics of our enemies. The gov can listen to all my phone calls and read all my emails I have nothing to hide.

Shamus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 12, 2007, 10:25:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by acfireguy26
If you are not engaged in criminal activety what is there to worry about. We must adapt to the changing tactics of our enemies. The gov can listen to all my phone calls and read all my emails I have nothing to hide.

I have no contraband in my home so they can search it anytime they want.

I don't care to own firearms, so I don't see the need for you guys to own them.

If doing away with these rights saves one life its worth it, all you tin hats have to understand that this is a post 9/11 world and if you disagree with me you are hiding something and must be a criminal.

shamus

VOR · « **Reply #4 on:** November 12, 2007, 10:28:24 AM »

Good bait ^^^

JB88 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 12, 2007, 10:30:19 AM »

time to redefine the term "intelligence official"

Saxman · « **Reply #6 on:** November 12, 2007, 10:53:51 AM »

ac and Sham:

The problem is it will NEVER just stop there. You can call it paranoia all you want, but if you start allowing the government to monitor your personal correspondence to "protect against terrorism," then it's not that much of a leap before the secret police comes knocking on your door for any critical opinion you may have about the government. It's little abuses to freedom like that "for the greater good" that are EXACTLY how police states start.

I don't care WHAT kind of world this is now. Safety and security are NOT legitimate reasons for these breaches of personal privacy that are SUPPOSED to be protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and frankly I find that sort of "ZOMG WE MUST STOP THE TERRORISTS!" alarmism FAR more troubling that the "tin hats." These protections were established PRECISELY to prevent the sort of idealogical persecution that was happening in parts of Europe during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

I guarantee you that if people give up one or two little freedoms in the illusion of safety without so much as a word of protest, then a whole lot of BIG freedoms will eventually follow.

crockett · « **Reply #7 on:** November 12, 2007, 11:14:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by acfireguy26
If you are not engaged in criminal activety what is there to worry about. We must adapt to the changing tactics of our enemies. The gov can listen to all my phone calls and read all my emails I have nothing to hide.

That's a pretty sad statement considering principles of which this country was founded on.

VonMessa · « **Reply #8 on:** November 12, 2007, 11:41:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
Good bait ^^^

Agreed. You can pry my firearms from my cold, dead hands is what you can do.

~~101st SCREAMING EAGLESSSSSSSSSS! Huuah!~~

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #9 on:** November 12, 2007, 11:44:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
I have no contraband in my home so they can search it anytime they want.

I don't care to own firearms, so I don't see the need for you guys to own them.

If doing away with these rights saves one life its worth it, all you tin hats have to understand that this is a post 9/11 world and if you disagree with me you are hiding something and must be a criminal.

shamus

Man, that stuff you rub on your bait REALLY stinks.

FBBone · « **Reply #10 on:** November 12, 2007, 11:46:11 AM »

Sax, I believe Shamus' post was tongue in cheek and aimed at acfireguy.

crockett, while this is rare, I agree with you 100%.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2007, 12:09:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
I have no contraband in my home so they can search it anytime they want.

I don't care to own firearms, so I don't see the need for you guys to own them.

If doing away with these rights saves one life its worth it, all you tin hats have to understand that this is a post 9/11 world and if you disagree with me you are hiding something and must be a criminal.

shamus

Mr Bill`s or Catfish Charlie???????

Urchin · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2007, 01:24:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
sundowner.. what is the origin of your avatar?

I think that anything you say on the phone or in an email should never be considered to be private but.. should never be able to be used against you in court. I have never considered them to be that secure.

lazs

Lazs, it looks to me like his avatar is an illustration of the Dark Tower - from the Stephen King books.

Fishu · « **Reply #13 on:** November 12, 2007, 01:52:49 PM »

The concept of privacy wasn't invented without a good reason. Why are we willing to go through the process again to find out what the reason was?

Airscrew · « **Reply #14 on:** November 12, 2007, 01:55:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
time to redefine the term "intelligence official"

yep, my thought too...