Telephone privacy

[VF500]

I'm posting this as an editiorial because there isn't any political (right brain, left brain) connotation involved.

I've been wondering what people are saying to each other, over the phone, that would be damaging to them, in whatever way, if someone in the government overheard them. Are people telling each other their social security numbers, or giving out financial information (I was overdrawn on my checking account last week) or exposing their love lives (asked this gal for a date, she turned me down). I'm having a tough time coming up with something so critical that it's worth stopping the government from listening in on suspected terrorists that could keep the rest of us safe. What am I missing?

[alex n]

Why have private conversations at all? What is so important that other people aren't allowed to hear?

[heyhey]

................What am I missing?


ummmm. how about the Constitution and The Bill of Rights... :eek:

[mbossman2]

I'd have to agree (and write this one down) with heyhey. whether there is or is not something that is damaging is immaterial, the invasiveness of the government into private lives, unless there is a compelling and demonstrated public need, should be strictly curtailed.

or if you don't buy into that, conversations that include:
Personal finances
Personal medical history
Personal interactions
all could be used against you.

Where I have an issue with this stricture is if abdul from killamericansastan is calling his buddy achmed in the USA to arrange something that is a threat to the USA. American history has multiple and numerous examples of the federal government monitoring communications of not just foreign nationals but also of foreign governments (both on and off American soil) as well as agents for unfriendly nations (american citizens or no) to evaluate threats against national security and until the Church Committee report were considered part and parcel of national defense.

[eagle]

What I would like to know is if the government has even busted any terrorist based on wire tapping? And wouldn't the terrorist know that the government is listening to phone conversations? They could always use snail mail or ship a letter overnight or use cb radios.

[heyhey]

I'm posting this as an editiorial because there isn't any political (right brain, left brain) connotation involved.

I've been wondering what people are saying to each other, over the phone, that would be damaging to them, in whatever way, if someone in the government overheard them. Are people telling each other their social security numbers, or giving out financial information (I was overdrawn on my checking account last week) or exposing their love lives (asked this gal for a date, she turned me down). I'm having a tough time coming up with something so critical that it's worth stopping the government from listening in on suspected terrorists that could keep the rest of us safe. What am I missing?

HMMMM....

Nationalism .. and labeling critics within as traitors at most... "unpatriotic" at least...suppresion of criticism of our leader and chief in the name of nationalism and shared unity...
Ever increasing allocation of resources into supporting millitary and war...
Corporatism
and now unyielding consent at power grabs by the head of state with erosion of civil liberties and privacy...

Guess what that perfect storm led to in history...

look that up... VF500

[alex n]

Ideally the Government should be able to monitor calls of suspected terrorists etc. and receive the benefits of doing so without invading the privacy of citizens.

Unfortunately I don't trust them that much. Take local police officers as a primitive example (at least in my area and I am sure they are worse in others). Cops tend, in my personal experience, to use excessive force most of the time. They are assholes, they treat you like you are a criminal at first sight, they do whatever they want most of the time without a check on their power. Of course the court system can check their power, but the system gets bogged down and sometimes its not worth fighting. If you decide to fight, it could take months to see your day in court while you sit and rot under the abosolute authority of a local police officer (some uneducated nitwit completely devoid of an understanding of justice other than the justice of his complete and blind belief in his right to exercise absolute authority over you.)

Of course, there are good cops that exercise good judgment and there are ones that do not.

I guess my point is that if you let people have a lot of power (the ability to listen into anyone and everyone making private phone calls), it WILL be abused.

It's kind of like a police officer approaching you and assuming you are a criminal. If they approach you under such an assumption, you are likely to get screwed over....and who is going to stand up for you?

[VF500]

ummmm. how about the Constitution and The Bill of Rights... :eek:
I've never seen anything in the constitution about wire tapping. Oh yeah, I forgot about Ben Franklin saying his Iphone was off limits.

But back to the point, what are you saying that is worth putting people's lives at risk?

[VF500]

What I would like to know is if the government has even busted any terrorist based on wire tapping? And wouldn't the terrorist know that the government is listening to phone conversations? They could always use snail mail or ship a letter overnight or use cb radios.
I guess it would be interesting to know. However, all that really matters is there haven't been any more attacks in the United States. What I wouldn't want the terrorists to know is how we got the information. It has been "leaked" to them in the past from loose lipped politicians who have no interest in fighting terrorism. Then they started using throw away cel phones to make surveillance more difficult. How was information gathered on that bunch who were planning to get guns from a military armery? Who knows, but they were caught and that's what matters.

[VF500]

HMMMM....

Nationalism .. and labeling critics within as traitors at most... "unpatriotic" at least...suppresion of criticism of our leader and chief in the name of nationalism and shared unity...
Ever increasing allocation of resources into supporting millitary and war...
Corporatism
and now unyielding consent at power grabs by the head of state with erosion of civil liberties and privacy...

Guess what that perfect storm led to in history...

look that up... VF500
You're just full of little cliche terms aren't you. Try coming up with an original thought occasionally. :)

[mbossman2]

I've never seen anything in the constitution about wire tapping. Oh yeah, I forgot about Ben Franklin saying his Iphone was off limits.

But back to the point, what are you saying that is worth putting people's lives at risk?

I direct you to:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While the Constitution does not specifically address wiretaps, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue several times so protection against warrantless electronic surveillance is, in fact, addressed.

I won't quote that tired old Ben Franklin saw about security and liberty...but I will point out that the Founding Father's felt sufficiently motivated to severely curtail the government's abilities in area of search and seizure. they saw that S&S could quickly grow in a tyrannical power. You have to look no further than your favorite dictator of choice to see that people just "disappear" thru abuse of this power as well as the loss of personal property (think Hugo Chavez here).

While I do understand the concern regarding attacks upon the USA and its citizenry, abuse of search and seizure powers has led to far more deaths than any attack or series of attacks. Think Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler in case you need some examples.

Visitors to this country are not only bound by the laws of this country but are also protected by them as well, whether you, or anyone else, likes it.

If, you feel otherwise, I will give you the same advice I give those who feel that the 2nd amendment no longer applies: please review Article V of the US Constitution. it details exactly how the Constitution can be amended:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[eagle]

I'm tired of people saying that we haven't been attacked in 5-6 years to protect this administration, but the same people who say that are usually the same ones who said after 9/11 see how patient the terrorist are they waited 8 years and attacked us again, they are patient people. As far as I'm concerned it’s just a matter of time.

[alex n]

I'm tired of people saying that we haven't been attacked in 5-6 years to protect this administration, but the same people who say that are usually the same ones who said after 9/11 see how patient the terrorist are they waited 8 years and attacked us again, they are patient people. As far as I'm concerned it’s just a matter of time.

Maybe they will hit your city and you will end up dead. Are you predicting your own death with that assertion?

[VF500]

While the Constitution does not specifically address wiretaps, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue several times so protection against warrantless electronic surveillance is, in fact, addressed.
Bingo. There isn't anything in the constiution about wire tapping so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to trot out some tired constitutional justification against it. If it was unconstitutional, it would be totally illegal. But it can be done and has been done for years.

While I do understand the concern regarding attacks upon the USA and its citizenry, abuse of search and seizure powers has led to far more deaths than any attack or series of attacks. Think Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler in case you need some examples.

Duly noted. Know all about it.

Visitors to this country are not only bound by the laws of this country but are also protected by them as well, whether you, or anyone else, likes it.

If, you feel otherwise, I will give you the same advice I give those who feel that the 2nd amendment no longer applies: please review Article V of the US Constitution. it details exactly how the Constitution can be amended:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Thanks, been to civics class.

Now, is anyone going to answer my question? What are people so paranoid about and what are they saying that is worth the deaths of thousands of citizens? Anyone, anyone at all. Are you out there? Please, no more constitutional law or civics lessons. What are you saying that is worth people dieing for? It's really a simple question.

[mbossman2]

let me answer your question with a question:

How many of your basic liberties are you willing to surrender to be "safe"?


your right to assemble? After all if there is no crowd, there are fewer targets. much safer
your right to free speech? Keep your mouth shut and you can't piss anyone off. much safer
Religious freedom? adopt sharia law and I'll bet you some, if not all, of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists would leave us alone. much safer
right to keep and bear arms? hey, no guns means no guns for the bad guys - - great! much safer
put a soldier in every home? hey, he can personally defend you (especially now that you can't have a gun). much safer
right to a speedy and fair trial? hey, he(or she) looks like a terrorist, they must be guilty - put in jail - - or up against the wall and shoot. much safer
No cruel and unusual punishment? hey thumbscrews and the rack can help deter the bad guys! much safer
On the subject of thumbscrews and the rack - how about the right against self incrimination? torture 'em until they "confess"! we'll be much safer.


I personally am loathe to give up any of these, how about you?

The protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights will be here far beyond this short term issue - - unless they are pissed away in a rush to be safe.

In addition, laws and regulations beg to be used and creative and overzealous government folks will figure out ways to use them in ways that were never intended.

oh yeah and one final thing:

There isn't anything in the constiution about wire tapping so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to trot out some tired constitutional justification against it.

Once the Supreme Court rules that something is Constitutional or Unconstitutional, guess what? it is! So while a technology didn't exist when the Constitution was framed, the Supreme Court can use the Constitutional framework to define and apply it to modern technology. As an example: the modern repeating rifle did not exist in the late 1700's, so applying your "(t)here isn't anything in the constiution (sic) about wire tapping" logic, it shouldn't be covered by the 2nd amendment - yet it is.

[VF500]

I'm tired of people saying that we haven't been attacked in 5-6 years to protect this administration, but the same people who say that are usually the same ones who said after 9/11 see how patient the terrorist are they waited 8 years and attacked us again, they are patient people. As far as I'm concerned it’s just a matter of time.
It's better that you're tired than people are dead, don't you think?
BTW, if phone conversations are so sacred and inviolate, why am I always being annoyed by people on cel phones blabbing away in public places like restaurants and airports, :confused: but go ahead and dodge my question.

[Kuch]

This whole debate is almost an exercise in circular reasoning.

Of course, we all want the government to get whatever information they need from terrorist’s conversations in order to thwart attacks. I think this is a point upon which we can all agree.

The point of contention is do we really want the government listening to our own conversations while trolling for terrorist information? Most people do not want the government doing this while others are indifferent. The problem with allowing the government to listen in on everyone’s conversations is that once the door is opened, it is hard to close.

Personally, I don’t have anything to hide. Despite that, I still don’t want someone listening to what I have to say when having a private conversation over a phone I pay for. If the government wants to pay for my phone, then they can listen all they like. Until then, they should stay out.

Sure, the upside to this type of trolling is that the gathering of information is very easy. Agents of the government wouldn’t have to convince a judge what bit of information they are looking for will be provided or why they think a particular person is going to provide that information. I sort of feel this is sloppy police work and goes against people’s right to privacy. Would it make things easier for the government? Sure, but that doesn’t make it right.

We should all understand that terrorists will use our own freedoms against us, but that doesn’t justify limiting those freedoms or marginalizing our rights to privacy. If we do so, we will lose in the eyes of the terrorists because they will have succeeded in limiting our own freedoms and changing our way of life.

[mbossman2]

Personally, I don’t have anything to hide.

interesting article (http://www.scribd.com/doc/187371/-Ive-Got-Nothing-To-Hide-and-other-Misunderstandings-of-Privacy) on this.

[eagle]

Maybe they will hit your city and you will end up dead. Are you predicting your own death with that assertion?

Maybe, Maybe not. I'm not a psychic but when a certain people hate us so much and have attacked us twice already then it's quite possible they will do it again. I don’t know but that’s just my opinion.

[eagle]

It's better that you're tired than people are dead, don't you think?
BTW, if phone conversations are so sacred and inviolate, why am I always being annoyed by people on cel phones blabbing away in public places like restaurants and airports, :confused: but go ahead and dodge my question.

I've bought things over the phone before and given credit card info and I've used check by phone. Would it bother you if I could listen to all of your phone conversations?