Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Safeguards

Privacy assurances far from persuasive

June 30, 2013

Government officials’ reactions to revelations the privacy of millions of Americans has been invaded would be laughable were the situation not so serious....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(52)

denver

Jun-30-13 7:22 AM

Well here we go again.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-30-13 8:01 AM

The laughable part of this entire invasion of American privacy is the fraudulence of the left. For decades, those who staked their claim as protectors of liberty suddenly fold like cheap suits because now it’s one of theirs stealing liberties. Granted, not all have caved so easily but the vast majorities including most who post on public forums have shown their true colors. It’s really sad.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jun-30-13 9:27 AM

I'm glad your finally admitting that its the Democrats that are the protectors of liberty. There little buddy

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jun-30-13 9:38 AM

It's a good thing you've already passed Reading, denver, b/c if you wrote a test like this you would flunk.

I can read the same passage to say that when Republicans are in power, the Democrats are the protectors of liberty; but when the Democrats are in power the Republicans are the protectors of liberty. We're both reading between the lines, to get out of it what we want to find.

Here we go again, indeed.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jun-30-13 9:39 AM

The editorial doesn't address NSA's defense that most of those records are put into a sort of an escrow account, where NSA can't access them w/o a search warrant or some such, from a court. If they didn't save them, & a clue turns up later, there wouldn't be anything to go back to.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jun-30-13 9:41 AM

Winston Churchill made a stirring radio speech to Britian, promising that if/when Hitler invaded England "we will fight them .. on the beaches, ..." There is a story that they barely got the mike turned off before he added, "And we will fight them with beer bottles, because we have nothing else." Addressing the question of government secrecy according to whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in power, is like fighting the Wehrmacht w/ beer bottles. But do we have anything else? I don't think anyone here think that our government shouldn't do anything in secret. But can we ever trust the checks & balances that have been put in place to restrain its secret activities? As the editorial says, it's "far from persuasive".

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-30-13 10:11 AM

The problem Neo is that that the government does not have probable cause to gather that information and keep it perpetuity hoping that a clue will turn up. That violates the citizens right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

As for the notion that we must give up some liberty to ensure security is nothing more than an ad hoc argument that does not meet the minimal standards for probable cause set forth in Carroll v. U.S.

You don’t have to read between the lines. I’ll be perfectly clear. BOTH parties will trounce the Constitution when it furthers their agenda. Republicans have no more problem trouncing the 4th Amendment in the name of security then Democrats do in crapping all over the 2nd for the same reasons.

Both are garbage with the only thing worse being the hypocrite who jump the fence when it suites their purpose as many Egalitarians are doing in these illegal searches.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jun-30-13 10:41 AM

Here's what I would like to know, where was this editors outrage 8 years ago when this program was implemented? Why now? Would anybody like to guess??

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jun-30-13 10:51 AM

As long as the information is in escrow, AaronS, it's hard to see how it violates the substance of any right.

Not that I'm comfortable w/ it. I just don't see a solution that can be comfortable.

I concluded decades ago that technology, & its effects on society, will force a re-definition of privacy. In which you can no longer keep your activities to yourself & your associates; the focus has to shift to how the government manages that information.

Now that future is arriving, & I'm not as comfortable w/ it as I expected to be. Why not? Is it b/c not enough people saw this future coming & worked toward a new balance? Or b/c no satisfying solution can exist? I suspect, somewhere in between.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jun-30-13 10:56 AM

There is a letter in today's "Letters to the editor" tilted (Proving the wrong point) pretty much sums it up!

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-30-13 11:01 AM

From a 2008 George W. Obama campaign speech.

“For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.) It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.”

*******news.cnet****/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jun-30-13 11:10 AM

Where was this editors outrage 8 years ago when this program was implemented? Why now?

Answer that.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-30-13 11:13 AM

Neo ask “As long as the information is in escrow, AaronS, it's hard to see how it violates the substance of any right.”

To answer your question Neo you simply have to read the 2nd part of the 4th Amendment state “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.”

Before the government can even ask for a warrant, they have to describe in detail the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. Under your scenario, if a crime involves a red car or a brown house, the government has the right to seize and hold in perpetuity all matching vehicles or homes until a clue can be found. It’s ludicrous and a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

manydemocrats

Jun-30-13 11:48 AM

The paranoia of these Gun Totin Right Wingers is so laughable. They are so desperate to find and hold onto anything that even possibly resembles a SCANDAL against the Obama administration. Their conduct for the past 4 1/2 years has been that of FAILED OBSTRUCTIONISM. Now they have embarked upon a new plan of SCANDALS. Yesterday, I posted a warning to them from their famous leader MR LIMBAUGH, that they are rapidly becoming a NON-EXISTENT party. Yet they continue to demonstrate their stupidity. THEY have a MAJORITY in the CONGRESS, and they {the CONGRESS} are VACATION AGAIN on YOUR TAX DIMES. Get your heads out of your *** and speak and think for the WORKING CLASS for once...

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-30-13 11:56 AM

I actually read one blogger excused the President on his illegal searches because "he's a good guy looking out for the working man whereas Bush only cares about corporations."

In this day and age, it’s hard to believe but there are still people so ill-advised they judge the actions based on who the person responsible and not the action itself. This is the type of dimwitted person who believes that if someone they support breaks the law for what they believe to be a justifiable cause, it’s ok but they would tar and feather another for the EXACT same act if they don’t agree politically.

The bottom line is, President Obama explicitly stated in 2008 that he would not continue the warrantless wiretapping of George W. Bush as can be seen in the YouTube video attached. ***********youtube****/watch?v=-Rdi_RNRpdk

Given the President’s comments, how can anyone come to any conclusion other than he lied to Americans and as such, is nothing more than a hypocrite?

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jun-30-13 12:16 PM

"AaronS" how did you come up with warrant-less wiretapping? No where in this article does it say anything about warrant-less wiretapping! It states "National Security Agency has been secretly seizing telephone records of millions of Americans - and monitoring many calls." So again where did you come up warrant-less wiretapping there little buddy?

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jun-30-13 1:59 PM

AaronS, your 11:13 post contains a non-sequiter:

If the government wants to place a COPY of my house & my car in an escrow account, I hardly see how that harms me.

0 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-30-13 2:43 PM

I wonder Neo, do you also subscribe to the theory that if one is pulled over and has nothing to hide, they should give consent to authorities to search their vehicle without a warrant?

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-30-13 4:07 PM

"If the government wants to place a COPY..."

I didn't say anything about a copy Neo. Is there a reason you're trying twist my argument instead of answering my question?

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jun-30-13 4:16 PM

How did you come up with warrant-less wiretapping?

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jun-30-13 8:12 PM

I'm not twisting your argument, AaronS. You took a turn in the next-to-last sentence of your 11:13, & I followed you turn. You wrote, "Under your scenario, if a crime involves a red car or a brown house, the government has the right to seize and hold in perpetuity all matching vehicles or homes until a clue can be found." You added an element not found in the original: people would be deprived of the use of their red cars & brown houses. What NSA is storing under PRISM isn't your messages, it's copies of your messages -- your messages don't fail to be delivered. So in my 1:59 I tried to set your derailed argument back on track: the government would have to make copies of all red cars & brown houses & hold the copies.

AaronS doesn't need this explanation, dear reader, he understood it the 1st time. He's trying to fake you out -- & if you're just skimming these comments, he probably did.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jun-30-13 8:17 PM

Jun-30-13 2:43 PM AarosS posted:

"I wonder Neo, do you also subscribe to the theory that if one is pulled over and has nothing to hide, they should give consent to authorities to search their vehicle without a warrant?"

No.

My answer is not automatic, I would have to consider the circumstances. I lean to not granting permission.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jun-30-13 9:56 PM

Did I really need to say they retain the right to search your home or car in perpetuity Neo. I'm pretty sure you know that is th comparison.

I don't believe the government has any more right to copy my phone calls or messages than they would retain the right to search my home or car years down the road simply because they suddenly found a clue that would suggest my property had been previously involved in a crime.

The 4th Amendment is pretty clear on the subject. If the government wants to use my phone records they need to state their case and get a legitimate warrant now, not when something might happen. That's my Constitutional right.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jul-01-13 12:05 AM

No they don't.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-01-13 1:05 AM

I believe they do. Perhaps one day one of the suits will stick and the Supreme Court will decide.

Either way, my point on this thread stands. He Marxist liberals who trashes Bush and are now excusing Obama are hypocrites.

Plain and simple.

Anything else?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 52 comments Show More Comments
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web