Privacy in the 21st century

[bush_cheney2004]

In terms of something like FISA/PATRIOT Act or similar laws that take away our privacy for non-warrant searches etc., I would rather take slightly higher crime rates and the the extremely low risk of death/harm from a terrorist attack than to give up essential privacy rights. So for me, the negatives outweigh the positives in these anti-privacy laws.

That's fine, but you don't get to make that call for the majority who would choose real or perceived security over their real or perceived privacy. You can, however, disengage at the individual level if you so choose. As I noted above, very few do, because the apparatus of government and commerce collects and distributes far more "private data" than anything the NSA could or wishes to do.

Edited December 11, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

Before 9/11 that would have been illegal. Those two documents negate important articles in the constitution and the bill of rights. The importance of this is lost on many people.

What I don't understand is how legislation like the PATRIOT Act, or at least specific parts if it, were not struck down by the courts fairly quickly as clearly unconstitutional. I mean, it's right there in the 4th Amendment.

[bush_cheney2004]

What I don't understand is how legislation like the PATRIOT Act, or at least specific parts if it, were not struck down by the courts fairly quickly as clearly unconstitutional. I mean, it's right there in the 4th Amendment.

Because they were not unconstitutional. Many state and federal laws already had privacy provisions that were tested in court long before 9/11. Hell, in Canada they can do whatever they want as long as it is a "reasonable" violation of rights. No PATRIOT Act required.

[GostHacked]

What I don't understand is how legislation like the PATRIOT Act, or at least specific parts if it, were not struck down by the courts fairly quickly as clearly unconstitutional. I mean, it's right there in the 4th Amendment.

Through various executive orders along the way has made it easier for the government to completely get around those founding documents. Regardless of what people say, like some in this thread, the US constitution is very important. Probably one of the most important on the planet. The current and recent leaders have marginalized those founding documents. The guaranteeing of rights and freedoms needs to be taken away for security, because someone else hates those freedoms. You can't be free because someone might try and do you harm. We all know how f'n ridiculous that sounds.

[GostHacked]

To add, the NDAA states that American citizens, can be detained indefinitely and without charge or reason, under the guise of National Security. 100% unconstitutional.

[cybercoma]

That CNN story doesn't assert that anything illegal was done. If it's public information, then we may have less reason to be aghast at the idea that it's known to everyone.

The worrisome part is the analysis they do with that information behind your back, without your consent, and without your knowledge of their investigations. There was a lawyer recently that said we're not in an Orwellian era but a Kafkaesque one. We are all Josef K, on trial, with no knowledge whatsoever of our accuser or the proceedings.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....We are all Josef K, on trial, with no knowledge whatsoever of our accuser or the proceedings.

Speak for yourself...I am a very happy cockroach.

[Michael Hardner]

If you want the kind of unfettered access the NSA wants, you need a direct line into the network so you can look at anything you wish.

A 'direct line' to public data isn't a breach of security, or a violation of personal privacy either.

[Michael Hardner]

The worrisome part is the analysis they do with that information behind your back, without your consent, and without your knowledge of their investigations.

It's public data, as I said, so you don't have to be notified any more than you do when an old sweetheart looks you up on facebook.

There was a lawyer recently that said we're not in an Orwellian era but a Kafkaesque one. We are all Josef K, on trial, with no knowledge whatsoever of our accuser or the proceedings.

And we're blissfully unaware, and we will never know either way.

[dre]

I was surprised by your statement so I googled 'polls government reads emails' and got this:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/28/canadians_split_on_letting_governments_read_email_poll.html

Well, there are a lot of practical differences between what's happening and your extreme example but the point is really that you don't like it, and you don't think it's morally right.

That is clearly wrong. We have it, and have had it for all of our lifetimes.

You're just not convincing me here, and that seems to also be true for about half of Canadians, so this is going to continue.

No the polling I read said that the majority opposed it, and only 27% of Canadians thought it was necessary. As far as the statement "in some circumstances", thats a little misleading because I support law enforcement reading mail in "some circumstances" as well. When they can show a judge that its necessary and obtain a warrant. So people like me got collected by that question even though I vehemently opposed the bill.

That is clearly wrong. We have it, and have had it for all of our lifetimes.

No its not wrong. We have more protection from such activity than any other civilization in history. We are only recently starting to move towards something I would call a "surveillance state".

Edited December 11, 2013 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

When they can show a judge that its necessary and obtain a warrant.

Well, there's some kind of split there. I'm just trying to explain to you why it may be that these things are more politically sustainable than you might think.

No its not wrong. We have more protection from such activity than any other civilization in history. We are only recently starting to move towards something I would call a "surveillance state".

"You cant have democracy in a surveillance state."

Fine, then this statement is entirely based on whatever you define as democracy, and a 'surveillance state'. Therefore it is correct.

I'm going to move on from this discussion, as it's not going anywhere. I'm not appalled by the surveillance that has been going on, and it seems that the point of these conversations is to convince me to become so. I don't think it will be happening.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I'm going to move on from this discussion, as it's not going anywhere. I'm not appalled by the surveillance that has been going on, and it seems that the point of these conversations is to convince me to become so. I don't think it will be happening.

And despite all the emotional objections, none will be departing these "police states" anytime soon for something better.

[dre]

I'm going to move on from this discussion, as it's not going anywhere. I'm not appalled by the surveillance that has been going on, and it seems that the point of these conversations is to convince me to become so. I don't think it will be happening.

Yeah I dont think it will happen either. You cant teach someone about importance of civil rights, and the historical context from which they emerged in a couple of threads on a message board. Especially when they are determined not to learn.

[Michael Hardner]

You cant teach someone about importance of civil rights, and the historical context from which they emerged

... Especially when they are determined not to learn.

It's pretty arrogant to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand things. I don't have the same assumption about you - I just think we have different values.

Moving on.

[Moonlight Graham]

A 'direct line' to public data isn't a breach of security, or a violation of personal privacy either.

Somebody's Facebook account info that they've blocked from everybody seeing except their friends isn't "public data". If you or I can't see data from a stranger right now without hacking the site, it's not public data.

[Michael Hardner]

Somebody's Facebook account info that they've blocked from everybody seeing except their friends isn't "public data".

In that case, yes you're correct. That's a new occurrence though, and I'm not sure if the apps provide the same security to the user. In any case, we don't know - maybe the NSA subpoena'd the information, got a court order, or somehow took it, or maybe they set up a shell company to write apps to extract it... or they got it elsewhere, such as from Google etc...

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm going to move on from this discussion, as it's not going anywhere. I'm not appalled by the surveillance that has been going on, and it seems that the point of these conversations is to convince me to become so. I don't think it will be happening.

I don't understand how you or anyone can stick up for the NSA. If you have an email account on Hotmail/Yahoo/Gmail they can search through your emails without a warrant. They can search throughout all the files you upload to Dropbox, they can track your Skype conversations, your cellphone texts...no warrant.

[dre]

It's pretty arrogant to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand things. I don't have the same assumption about you - I just think we have different values.

Moving on.

I dont think its arrogant. I just think this isnt really an issue that concerns you and you havent bothered to think it through. You seem to just be looking at things from a very narrow perspective... "Why do I care if the government reads my boring emails", and not at the bigger picture, which is that the struggle to get people in power to treat us with respect took hundreds of years and .these are very important aspects of our society and they are what sets us apart from some others.

[GostHacked]

Mike,

Mind if I come over and open your mail? You know the stuff that the postman delivers? Would you have a problem with me or a anyone taking your mail out of your mail box and browsing through it? If so why, and if so, why has that approach not been taken with email?

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't understand how you or anyone can stick up for the NSA. If you have an email account on Hotmail/Yahoo/Gmail they can search through your emails without a warrant. They can search throughout all the files you upload to Dropbox, they can track your Skype conversations, your cellphone texts...no warrant.

Believing this, then why do you continue to use these (mostly American) web applications? The NSA is doing its job, and I would fire any NSA director and any of his/her direct reports who failed to execute their charter for spying, intelligence gathering, disinformation campaigns, data warehousing for future analysis, collaboration with other agencies, etc.

Edited December 13, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Mike,

Mind if I come over and open your mail? You know the stuff that the postman delivers? Would you have a problem with me or a anyone taking your mail out of your mail box and browsing through it? If so why, and if so, why has that approach not been taken with email?

Hi GH - I don't know if you saw my note above, but as I said I don't see the point in continuing in this circle: ie. you try to convince me to be outraged; you fail to do so; [repeat]

I understand the issues just fine, I feel the intrusion in these cases is justified, and mostly seems to follow process; if process isn't followed, I feel that it should be.

Really, nothing more to discuss here.

[bush_cheney2004]

.. I don't know if you saw my note above, but as I said I don't see the point in continuing in this circle: ie. you try to convince me to be outraged; you fail to do so; [repeat]

Far from being outraged, we used to make it a game many years ago going back to the Usenet bulletin board (BBS) days with dial up modems. Tossed in buzzwords like "nuclear", "bomb", "trigger", "arming", "fuze", "pit", "HE", "PBX", "radiological", "neutrons", "yield", "explosives", etc., etc.

Great fun !

[GostHacked]

Hi GH - I don't know if you saw my note above, but as I said I don't see the point in continuing in this circle: ie. you try to convince me to be outraged; you fail to do so; [repeat]

I understand the issues just fine, I feel the intrusion in these cases is justified, and mostly seems to follow process; if process isn't followed, I feel that it should be.

Really, nothing more to discuss here.

Just showing how inconsistent some people can be. Also showing how they can care about one thing but not the other when the are essentially the same. I know you wont bite, but you are tempted . Only one going in circles at the moment is you. At some point you will be outraged.

Process? These guys have no idea if they are breaking the law or now. Leaves things kind of open.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csec-watchdog-muzzled-defanged-greg-weston-1.2462279

As Defence Minister Rob Nicholson told the Commons this week: "There is a commissioner that looks into CSEC [and] every year for 16 years has confirmed that they've acted within lawful activities."

Well, not exactly.

'Contrary to law'

Only months ago, the recently retired CSEC commissioner, Justice Robert Decary, stated in his final report that he had uncovered records suggesting some of CSEC's spying activities "may have been directed at Canadians, contrary to law."

The retired justice said the CSEC records were so unclear or incomplete that he was unable to determine whether the agency had been operating legally.

Decary's predecessor, Justice Charles Gonthier, filed the same complaint about incomplete or missing records in his day, which forced him to report in a similar fashion that he could not determine if CSEC had been breaking the law.

What process?

[ReeferMadness]

In a perfect world, privacy would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, that's not the world we inhabit.

[cybercoma]

Hi GH - I don't know if you saw my note above, but as I said I don't see the point in continuing in this circle: ie. you try to convince me to be outraged; you fail to do so; [repeat]I understand the issues just fine, I feel the intrusion in these cases is justified, and mostly seems to follow process; if process isn't followed, I feel that it should be.Really, nothing more to discuss here.

his point is quite valid. Why not give me the password to your email account and let me read it. How about letting me read your PMs here?