Is your theoretical right to privacy greater than national security?

[Sparky Kronkite]

Ask me?

No.

Echelon. Carnivore. Every heard of'em? Thery're nothin' new really.

Free nation conglomerate spie systems - watch dogs that see everything - basically organized and headed (funded) by No Such Agency.

Some varied view points for your research pleasure......

http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~brobinso/cseukusa.html

http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/strigas.htm

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/hermetic/crypto/echelon/echelon.htm

http://www.iptvreports.mcmail.com/interception_capabilities_2000.htm

http://cryptome.org/carnivore-rev.htm

http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/15591.html

There's tons of info - run a search. Tons.

So - the question still stands: Is your theoretical right to privacy greater than national security? Would you "fight" to decrease this sytems and other systems like it in order to protect you theoretical right to privacy?

I would not. I don't do anything that they might even be remotely interested in. And now - even if I were doing such a thing - I've kissed their fucking asses so well - they love me.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[lavender]

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

I'm not trying to be "right," - just voicing an opinion.

Dearest Lavender -

As to your comment - "If there is a threat."

You're pretty sheltered if you don't think that there are multiple threats - from a multitude of sources - all the time.

I can't tell you how - but I absolutely know this to be true.

Also: As to "proving it." And "legitimate reasons."

You - the "general public," can never be aware of such things - and in fact - generally speaking you are not.

Attacks of one form or another, perpetrated upon "us" - are squelched all the time - and you know nothing of these. What you may get wind of - is accidental. And - the tip of the iceberg.

And these programs - though scary - are not nearly as scary as "what you don't know about - and what it's best, in fact - that you can't know about them." If you/we knew - that in itself would be the biggest harm to our own security.

 

[lavender]

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Ha! I contract.....

out to Big Brother.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Sparks darlin, you're over-reacting a tidge. While their computers can certainly go through mail being sent over the 'Net, how many people do you think are actually going to read it? Unless you put in their watch words, they're not going to see it. Why? The sheer volume of mail that goes out every minute. Call it safety in numbers.

Have you considered a move to Idaho?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Muff - never said anything about "their" abilities....

Just their capabilities and goals.

 

[samadhi]

Sparks darlin, you're over-reacting a tidge. While their computers can certainly go through mail being sent over the 'Net, how many people do you think are actually going to read it? Unless you put in their watch words, they're not going to see it. Why? The sheer volume of mail that goes out every minute. Call it safety in numbers.

Exactly! While I agree *in theory* that it is disturbing that all of my secret nasties can be observed...this is the case for everything! People are not supposed to but they CAN tap your phone, peek into your house, dig through your trash. The vast majority of us are not interesting enough for anyone to want to do this. I do think this is the kind of thing we should keep an eye on...because the world changes and it could be abused in the future...I don't think the average citizen (or even the non-average slightly 'deviant' citizen) has anything to worry about right now.

ANOTHER thing to talk about is discretion in prosecution. Just because this information is brought up does not mean necessarily that it will be used against you. On Howard Stern this morning these issues came up because he had a guest on talking about Beastiality, and an FBI lawyer called in to discuss several sting operations that have been put into place by the FBI to catch pedophiles. Essentially they are websites that advertise this kind of stuff then the FBI swoops in to nab people who log to the site.

Howard was *VERY* upset over the fact that someone could be prosecuted for accidentally logging to the site, or going there just to look. The simple fact is that our government neither has the time nor the interest in tormenting Jill/Joe average because she/he misclicked and ended up on the shady side of the net. Server logs and other information gathered by these programs are small pieces in much larger cases.

But then there is the issue of probable cause. Can an accidental log-on to a site on one occasion be used as probable cause to investigate the rest of your life? Probably not. Despite the way it is portrayed on TV and in movies it takes A LOT to get a search warrant.

I don't know I am rambling...too much coffee maybe. I am interested in what others think about this.

 

[Problem Child]

The right to privacy is not considered as fundamental in the US Constitution as liberty.

Isn't legal abortion (Roe vs. Wade) based on a fundamental right to privacy?

I hope you're not saying the government regards privacy as a great excuse to allow abortion, but not a good enough excuse to keep them from snooping through my mail and eavesdropping on my phone calls and e-mails...

I've always heard that Roe was a poorly written law anyway. What do you think?

 

[lavender]

 

[samadhi]

Law is an ugly tangled convoluted mess...what is and what is not allowed and 'guaranteed' is constantly being challenged, stretched, then restricted and limited, and the cycle begins again. That's what makes the law a living thing. One of the things that was stressed to us in school is to use your own sense of logic and common sense, then apply the law.

If you want to strip the question down to it's barest bones it could be phrased 'Is the right of the one worth more than the safety of the many?' I would say no. However, I do feel that we need to keep an eye out to be sure that the privacy of the one is not compromised to the extent that it becomes a danger to the many.

BTW: Lavender I completely agree with your analysis...even though it brought on a mild gagging fit as the memories of Professor Thompson washed over me! grin

 

[Problem Child]

I agree wholeheartedly in a right to privacy. I think it is a fundamnental right that Americans should possess. However, much like liberty is absolute, neither is our right to privacy. Our liberty ends where another individuals begins, as the Harm Principle by Thomas Hobbs states. We can't yell fire in a movie theatre, we do not have that liberty/freedom. Much in the same way when our right to privacy might harm national security, that right is limited.

Very few rights are absolute. That is the crux of my argument. As for all the legal workings of Roe, that would be an interesting topic.

I think I understand what you are saying.

The right of personal privacy vs. national security, society vs. the individual.

This leads us back to the right of the "child" to it's life, vs. the right of the mother to control of her body, no?

 

[rambling man]

One thing about invasion of privacy rights for national security reasons. These things are done by agencies and methods so secret, they would stay more private than if do0ne by the police or even the FBI.

Sparky is right. The special forces are almost always active doing something to prevent the nastiness of the world from crossing our borders. I know a couple of people involved with them.

Now how about loss of privacy at the hands of law enforcement, (as opposed to the NSA) I am concerned about this. Records can be subpoenaed or looked at by anyone in the department. Also, cops talk more than NSA folks. I don't approve of the infrared device that looks through walls in the hands of law enforcement. You know those guys are out there looking at people fucking and stuff. That's a violation of the 4th amendment anyway, a person's walls are supposed to be sacrosanct from law enforcement without a warrant.

And lack of privacy as regards to business is even worse. Selling medical records and such.....

I trust the spies a hell of a lot more than the insurance companies

 

[rambling man]

And as for Roe v. Wade, I think abortion is morally wrong but cannot be made illegal under our laws. Let God sort them out when they get there.

Abortion is an issue that politicians stoke up when they want to avoid the real issues. If a Democratic politician is feeling weak in some areas, he deflects attn by saying, "my opponent's abortion record...." Republicans do the same thing and it is shameful and cowardly. Last election the issue of deflection was prescription drugs. What the hell happened to that issue?

 

[unusuallyconfused]

And lack of privacy as regards to business is even worse. Selling medical records and such.....

I trust the spies a hell of a lot more than the insurance companies

I say What he said even if I don't know what he said, it sounds good.....lol, I have to agree about the insurance companies.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by lavender
…This is the theory that in order to uphold the substantive value of the rights to liberty we have, we must have the right to privacy. This right is not absolute, and this right, for many constitutional scholars is not enumerated in the Constitution.

Again, I iterate, if a right is not absolute, it is not a right, it is a privilege. If a right is subject to revocation or abrogation, it is not legitimately termed a right.

Originally posted by lavender
Yes, Roe was very poorly written law. That's because the Court couldn't come to a consensus on anything.…

Was Roe v Wade actually written into the statutes or has it merely remained a decision rendered by the Supreme Court which has been the precedent for subsequent decisions?

Originally posted by lavender
There is a difference between Roe and your mail. What really was written in Roe was a right to bodily integrity or bodily autonomy. However, if they had acknowledge this right it would have opened up a can of skanky worms. Therefore, the right to privacy was what happened. The difference between Roe and the hypothetical Sparky provides is that Roe never dealt with a trade-off with national security.

I'll disagree philosophically with the difference you cite. If there is a question of national security (or a question of criminal action), adequate provisions exist for legally accessing the private communications of those suspected of same via the courts. The difference is that under this system, the government must show probable cause.

And it is the absolution of government having to show probable cause that concerns me because this lays the foundation for tyranny, i. e., a government power and authority without reasonable restraint.

Originally posted by lavender
I agree wholeheartedly in a right to privacy. I think it is a fundamnental right that Americans should possess. However, much like liberty is absolute, neither is our right to privacy. Our liberty ends where another individuals begins, as the Harm Principle by Thomas Hobbs states. We can't yell fire in a movie theatre, we do not have that liberty/freedom. Much in the same way when our right to privacy might harm national security, that right is limited.

Very few rights are absolute. That is the crux of my argument. As for all the legal workings of Roe, that would be an interesting topic.

To the philosophical perspective, rights (including the aspect of privacy) is not limited to or confined by U. S. citizenship. As expressed in the Declaration of Independence, rights are innate. Thus, rights are the legitimate province of the individual regardless of their nationality, ethnic heritage, race, geographic location or any other criterion.

The fact that someone lives under a government that violates, restricts and abrogates the exercise of their rights does not negate the existence or reality of the rights. The idea of innate rights is self-evident and to say that a Chinese citizen has no rights because they live under a totalitarian government is tantamount to declaring that they are not human. And it is that premise which I reject.

But if you advocate the position that rights are not innate, rather they are a dispensation of government, then you negate the idea that they are in fact rights, rather you postulate that they are privilege subject to revocation at the pleasure of the government granting them.

When reduced to the most primitive concept, there is essentially one right and that is the right to one's life. All other aspects, privacy, property ownership, etc., are all derivatives of this fundamental right. The only aspect of your rights which are relinquished to any degree in a societal environment is the right to self defense. And that right is not fully surrendered, only that government is assigned as your agent to self-defense in situations that do not pose imminent threat of physical harm by a criminal.

For example, if your home or business is burglarized, the government is the agent to investigate, apprehend and try the suspected perpetrators and to punish those convicted. But if you are attacked directly, you are not constrained to summon police to your defense and wait for them to arrive to provide your defense.

 

[Texan]

good stuff unclebill

You are a "pure" libertarian. I read your posts with interest and enjoyment.

My only argument with most Libertarians has always been that they (not necessarily you) take good conservative philosophies and a strict constitutional constructionist viewpoint but don’t make any allowances for practicality. I think I see that in your definitions of “rights” and “privileges”. You take the constitutions use of “innate”, and don’t make allowances for practicality.

For example: Libertarians (like conservatives) believe in the “right to bear arms”. Libertarians take that to mean the right to bear “any type” of arms, from hand grenades to howitzers. While most Libertarians have no desire to own a howitzer, they will fight for the “right” to own one because they believe it’s a constitutionally guaranteed right.

I think liberals take the opposite approach. Liberals take a “broad” interpretation of the constitution and liberally apply their own version of practicality, with too little consideration for the intent of the framers.

These are just thoughts……

 

[Morden]

I think the bottom line on this issue is simple. Whether or not we like it. We are monitored 24/7. The reasons for this are varied. Some consider it a power game. Some a leash to control the populase. Others consider it a necesary for maintaining the security of thier loved ones during times when a simple crazed man can blow up a building. I think I can live with a monitor that doesn't really effect me. I have no illusions that I am existing in a privatised world. Not when camera's are common place in schools and at work. When employers look through e-mail written by the staff. Its just another fact of life. If you are unaccepting of it then by all means join a frontier group that takes great pains to live traditionally without advent of electronics. We chose to live in this society and so far I have no real reason to doubt its intentions, with the sole exception that they let such a primitive ideal such as capatilism ruin the natural world.

 

[Problem Child]

And good ones Texan...

Your example is one reason I lean heavily towards Libertarianism, but am not quite ready to make the leap as far as voting is concerned.

Another example is the pure Libertarian stand on drugs. I think decriminalization/legalization of marijuana is a common-sense idea, but am not ready to say the same for all drugs...although I believe someday it will eventually all be legal. I'm just not ready to legalize everything across the board.

Welfare...again, I think they would say that it should be completely eliminated. I think it should be as limited as practically possible, but don't want to see that small slice of society that is simply too lazy to ever work start dying in the streets of starvation.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about these Libertarian positions Bill....

 

[Morden]

I have to totally disagree on the marijuana issue. If they legalize marijuana they might end up having another HUGE ball of wax fall on thier head. I can see it as perscription only. Even then I can see issues coming from it.

 

[lavender]

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Man, I go away for a while and......

this thing not only runs away with itself - it tangents and then tangents some more.

All these thoughts are relative to the original question but - not they're aren't many answers to the original question.

Let's see - if I re-ask it this way........

What's more important? Your privacy? Or National security?

Please, don't get lost in the gray area - of which there is much.

Please don't tangent off into relative topics, vectoring off the subject - which is the question.

Give me what you beleive to be your priority - America's priority - the Globe's priority - at this very moment......

Your privacy? Or National security?

If you had to make a choice - c'mon - take the plunge, let's hear an answer.

 

[Problem Child]

Oh, Sparky...

Are you seriously requesting people not hijack your thread?

Sure, that'll work...

 

[samadhi]

This is a great discussion, one I am enjoying very much. I do have one question for Unclebill. You said:

I'll disagree philosophically with the difference you cite. If there is a question of national security (or a question of criminal action), adequate provisions exist for legally accessing the private communications of those suspected of same via the courts. The difference is that under this system, the government must show probable cause.

And it is the absolution of government having to show probable cause that concerns me because this lays the foundation for tyranny, i. e., a government power and authority without reasonable restraint.

It was my understanding that in order access the information collected by these systems the requesting agency needs to obtain a warrant, and to obtain the warrant they need to go through the courts and show probably cause.

It is very possible I am wrong about this. Can someone tell me please?

 

[rambling man]

It is tough to simplify this question because there is so much grey.

We have blended national security into criminal and social contexts. We use the military to fight drugs, making them a national security issue. They have declared AIDS a national security threat. What does that mean, anyway?

Your question is tough because we have reduced real national security to these other areas as well.

I believe, though, you mean national security to be threats from nation-states and other organizations which desire to undermine the United States.

I have no problem with the NSA montoring my phone calls. I call work, I call my folks, I am not threatening the government. Besides, I know they won't blab.

I would have more of a problem with the FBI, even though it is supposedly our chief counter-intelligence organization. I associate it more with the police power of our government directed at criminals rather than external threats.

I truly fear for our system if terrorists decide to inflitrate the US and wreck as much havoc as possible, including attacks on professional and college sports, county courthouses, state government facilities, things that, unlike the World Trade Center and embassies abroad, would truly rip at the heart of America. Those type actions would ultimately persuade the people of this country to overturn their freedom in favor of safety, to suspend their freedoms and rights. Right now the debate is academic.

Would we have the stomach and the will to maintain our freedoms if the terrorists carried the battle to this country in an intensive manner?