Freeper Opinions Desired (We all know you have one.)

Source disclosed only on a need to know basis. | June 16, 2013 | newheart

[newheart]

Take away the Bill of Rights and watch how quickly the opposite reality develops.

With all three branches of government in agreement that this stuff is just fine with them, we may see the opposite sooner rather than later.

[Revolting cat!]

I know one thing and that is if the NSA program had been effective, I’d have been long six feet under, a victim of an accidental collision with a drone.

[Political Junkie Too]

Simple answer.

1. If you don't exercise your rights, you risk losing them.

2. You should never have to justify to someone else why you are exercising your rights, or they aren't yours to begin with.

-PJ

[newheart]

Have you heard of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?

The 4th Ammendment does not create the right. It merely codifies the belief of the framers that the right exists. My question is about the ultimate basis for the rights enumerated in the 4th Amendment. What is that foundation?

[newheart]

If the feral government has no malicious intentions, it has no reason to spy on the citizenry.

Just to play devil's advocate here, what about spying on known criminals and suspected terrorists?

[newheart]

The power to spy is the power to control.

Thanks for a thoughtful and germane response. I think the difference is that omniscience is fine in the hands of a just, merciful and loving God who utilizes it for redemptive purposes. Somehow that does not fit the description I would write of the government.

[newheart]

I have nothing to hide and have no known illegal activities, yet I am certain that a single misconstrued sentence could be used to incriminate me somehow.

Yep, misconstrued. Or perhaps, just made up.

[Political Junkie Too]

Setting aside the contents of the calls, what about tracking your location habits via the GPS and/or the cell towers your phone hits when you're talking, or even when you're not but your phone is synchronizing?

Where does your expectations of privacy from the government end?

-PJ

[newheart]

The Federal Government was not designed to lord over the populace as the Federal Government is functioning today. It was designed to manage the union of the States, protect the borders, etc., but NOT by any means as the ruling entity that it has become by perseverance of the Left over many years.

Completely agree. But I think the Right shares some blame as well.

[newheart]

The premise of the "nothing to hide" argument is that only those engaging in criminal activity would object to being spied upon, and thus those who object must therefore be engaging in criminal activity. This is an attempt at intimidating people from disagreeing.

Excellent way to follow the logic of the argument.

[newheart]

If as Zero says the bad guys are finished, then they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Excellent point. Somehow I doubt he will understand it. (Or care)

[newheart]

These things are our RIGHTS. Their substance nor their rationale should never be an issue: those were debated when the USC and BOR were adopted.

Yes, I completely agree those are our rights. Unfortunately, not many people these days understand why they were adopted in the USC and BOR, so the rationale may need to be debated anew.

[newheart]

The problem with this is that it signifies a person who implicitly trusts the government in all things. I would even go as far to say that such a person who holds this view trusts government over any belief in God.

I have heard it argued that it is not based in a trust in government, but a trust in God. Personally I find that naive. Trust God,. Never the government.

[newheart]

Privacy against government surveillance is a way of saying that private conduct is no business of government, unless there is a sound and particularized basis for the government to suspect unlawful activity.

Excellent point. However, we are rapidly reaching a point where a desire to maintain some level of privacy against the government will be interpreted de facto as criminal behavior.

[Standing Wolf]

Just to play devil's advocate here, what about spying on known criminals and suspected terrorists?

Aw, that's easy, newheart: probable cause. If there's legitimate probable cause to believe crimes have been or are being committed, spying may very well make sense; there's no justification, however, for blanket spying on any one person without probable cause, spying en masse without it, or regarding Tea partiers, Christians, abortion opponents, et alia as dangers to the nation.

The feral government has declared its indpendence of both us, the people and the Constitution.

[newheart]

It´s very sobering to know how much data information the organized criminals have access to. I would WANT the NSA people to watch this and keep them supressed.

The question then becomes, How much of our right to privacy are we willing to give up in the hope of maintaining some semblance of security.

[newheart]

The #1 problem I have with the Left is that they seek to usurp the very power of God, in every way they can.

The heart of the matter.

[Stentor]

“If you have nothing to hide....”

Kinda chillin’ if ya ask me...

Whether or not I have anything to hide, without probable cause they have no reason to know. This desire to know everything is, to quote Colonel Bat Guano, preverted.

[newheart]

Great scene from Atlas Shrugged. Unfortunately I don’t think Rand has much of a leg to stand on in this argument. Her objectivist position is really just a way of couching a philosophy very close to Nietzsche. Unmitigated self-interest is purely a power dynamic and it is the very root of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes.

[metafugitive]

Orwell is beyond the grasp of a lot of folk, too many of whom populate this forum quite innocently defending Big Brother as a necessary evil.

In the Republic imagined by Our Founders, the Constitution gave a solid enduring foundation to the rule of law.

In other words the law was not a matter of what was momentarily fashionable.

In any police state, law is quite relative and a matter to what is fashionable.

You correct, I have nothing to hide as I am not presently doing anything illegal other than never wearing my seat belt and speeding.

Problem is the law is being mass manufactured by a bunch of stooges in the legislative branch who have admitted they rarely read the laws that they do pass, and it is revealed time and again they rarely bother to abide by many of the laws that they do pass.

There are so many stupid laws being passed today that much of what I did five years ago will be illegal in another five years.

Still this is not really a problem for me as I am an old man who will never be in the cross hairs of Barry or whoever may be serving as janitor and front man for the police state.

But young people are having information collected today that may not be of present illegal behavior but well may be in another ten years.

What if that young person may decide to run for office later on.

Those who run for public office must account for whatever they have done that was recorded on the public record. But should they have to account for what was recorded a decade ago on the Big Brother's private record?

Just because no abuses of average citizens private information have not occurred, does not mean it won't.

You cannot allow the Fourth Amendment to shredded without understanding the consequences may not be immediate but those consequences over time will be devastating.