Skip to main content

View Diary: Privacy is what the intelligence chiefs say it is (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No offended (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm not offended at all by the question, only by the implication that you or anyone else is simply fine with the government capturing, indexing, and storing everything you say on your phone, write in an e-mail, or otherwise send over the internet or cellular phone network including where you go and when you went there.  It doesn't matter whether they review it or not, the simple fact that they possess it is ripe for abuse.

    The usual response from people who are ok with this is, "I don't have anything to hide."  And the reply to that is "if you have nothing to hide, then I'd like to see some nude photos of your wife, please."

    [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

    by rabel on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 11:21:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I want to clarify my thoughts (0+ / 0-)

      It isn't about having anything to hide or not.  What I am asking is, does the government have a right to collect data from those who are in communication with suspected, or known, terrorists.

      Or even criminals...

      A real life example.  In El Paso, known drug cartels were using were using US Army soldiers as enforcers.  They would email an intermediary who would then contact the soldier for a hit.

      Would it be within the governments rights to follow the email chain even if they only had a warrant for the original email?

      I would guess, you would say no, but I am not so sure.

      •  A suspect or not? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrismorgan, CroneWit

        You're coming up with a somewhat simplified version of the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario.

        My response is as usual, the government has every right to identify a suspect, get a warrant from a judge to spy on that suspect, and then proceed to capture whatever they're legally allowed to capture based on the facts of the warrant.

        They do not get to just grab all e-mail to and from everyone that a suspect e-mails. What if the suspect was a US Army soldier who just so happened to have sent an e-mail to an Army General or to his State Senator?  Would the government then have the right and duty to capture, catalog and store every e-mail the Army General sent and received even from his personal e-mail account? Why should it matter if this 1 "hop away" person is a General or you or me?

        Substitute "e-mail" with "telephone calls" and wonder if you'd be alright with having the government listen in on all your calls because someone, somewhere, misdialed your number. Would they also have the right to grab the sexy photos of your wife off your phone since sometime in the past someone e-mailed you accidentally? You ever have someone call you with a wrong number? How about a random text from someone you don't know or perhaps you are unlucky enough to get a new cell phone number that was previously used by some suspect?

        They wouldn't do that, would they?

        [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

        by rabel on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 11:53:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  hasn't the state been able to listen to all (0+ / 0-)

          calls as part of RICO investigations?

          •  Troll (0+ / 0-)

            Ok, I'm just going to write you off as an Authoritarian Troll since you clearly are just pushing an agenda rather than actually discussing anything I'm saying.

            Either you're a shill, or you really truly believe that it's ok that the government listens, captures and stores anything everyone says or writes. Fascist movements the world over are supported by people exactly like you, and they begin with the very things you're defending.

            [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

            by rabel on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 12:39:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  when did you stop enabling terrist coddlers? (0+ / 0-)

      we need specifics.

      we need them now.

      why did you not butt in front of the terrist at the checkout line at Safeway? Were you knowingly enabling a future attack on the Homeland?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (63)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Science (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Spam (21)
  • Law (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site