It is Fundamentally wrong in the classic American tradition. I have done nothing wrong so “they” have no right to spy on me. If I happen to have some statistical association with a crime I should be charged maybe but I should be considered INNOCENT until proven guilty.
2. What is the problem with the “I have nothing to hide, who cares?” argument? Can I snoop around your house and try to make something up on you. We have a right to expect privacy form the “King”. Why is obama hiding his records? He has a right to privacy but a duty to show what is required by law and tradition for public officers.
How comfortable would you be with an individual deciding to release to the world whether particular individuals (including you) have HIV, were treated for STDs, have had abortions, and details of any treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, or any psychiatric treatment? And how comfortable are you with Obama mandating electronic record keeping that makes it vastly easier to grab and disseminate this information?
On another thread, I posed the threat in Mexico, how the Zeta´s have high priority to kidnap I.T. people, computers nerds-geeks who know how to load software, follow cell phone signals. The entire Mexican populations is being watched not by their gov´t but by the Zeta´s, then have access to bank accounts, moving of large sums of money. My American friend got cell phone calls as he headed to the airport, they knew exactly what street corner he was one, and when he walked into the airport. 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 surpressed.
It is wrong to assume that you would get in trouble with the government only if you are doing something wrong. 4th amendment aside, what you need to worry about is that the government will catch you doing something right that they do not approve of. Invasion of privacy is the tool of a totalitarian state.
(1) Many things that are perfectly legal can be embarrassing. Many other things that are neither embarrassing nor illegal might offend someone in power.
(2) If you give people in government too much power, they will use that power to control and/or ruin you. For example, some bureaucrat likes your house, business, some contract opportunity, your wife, your daughter, etc. Or they do not like some opinion you hold, do not like you, or just plain like destroying people. If they have full access to every aspect or even just many aspects of your life, and they have the power of government behind them, they can ruin you or threaten to ruin you to get what they want.
Finally, there are so many laws now that just about every one of us can be construed to violate at lease a few laws from time to time.
And something else. When Barack Obama thinks it is relevant to the American people WHERE HE WAS AND WHAT HE WAS DOING when four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, only then will I consider who I call is relevant. FUBO
That is one of my favorite scriptures, as important as “do unto others...”
The #1 problem I have with the Left is that they seek to usurp the very power of God, in every way they can. (Guess who that sounds like?)
This is just one more way.
“Inquiring minds want to know”
Who are the inquiring minds? The NSA? Why don’t you give us or the “inquiring minds” your OWN opinion? Spell it out and get FReeper comments on your opinion.
If your vanity was ever posted in the USSR or today in NK or even communist China, you wouldn’t get a single negative answer. You would have gotten TOTAL AGREEMENT that there is NO PROBLEM whatsoever about the dear government working to protect the PEOPLE.
Gadsden1st wrote in #2:
“What I think or say privately is none of your or anyone’s D@MN business!!”
He’s right, but would have been arrested as an anti-regime, counter-revolutionary advocate if he were living in a different country. Agreeing with Gadsden1st would earn me a cell next to his.
I agree with Gadsden1st. Last time I checked, It’s still the USSA that is fast approaching the good ol’ USSR.
Spreading fear is a very effective weapon in dictatorships. This is what’s being done to change the fabric in this country.
I have been around too many people to trust people. On the surface, some ideas seem OK. “The people have a right to know who is donating to a politician!” Well, of course! Maybe some foreigners or crooks are donating to a politician. Shouldn’t the people know that? It seems harmless enough. But what if the list of campaign contributors is used for illegal purposes? Let’s say, as an example, that all the names of contributors to a Republican candidate are collected for a Democrat database. Then, Democrats in government run the names of job applicants against this database. The interview points for government job applicants who are found on the database of Republican campaign donors suddenly drop 50 points.
“I just think that Nancy presented herself better than Steve during the interview.” Happens every day.
It’s important to look at this from two perspectives, that of “observation” and that of “surveillance”.
Observation has as its purpose to examine society looking for aberration. If aberration is detected, with permission from an outside authority, extra attention is given to the aberrant. Think of this as it was brought to the attention of the police that someone is acting strangely, so the police ask a judge for a search warrant, based on the reasonable suspicion that the aberrant behavior is criminal in character, before, during or after the fact.
Surveillance, on the other hand, is the *assumption* of aberrant behavior by everyone, or “assume guilt until proven innocent”. As such, it cannot depend on a judge to determine that individuals are suspect, because it assumes that ALL are suspect.
Surveillance is also inherently inefficient, because it has no focus, despite its technology, so it misses out on those individuals who are a threat, who without unique scrutiny are missed. Further, the technology of surveillance creates the illusion of efficiency by sheer volume, but that volume is of dross, not good intelligence.
Case in point, the new Utah facility will store immense amounts of utterly useless data. But knowing what the most popular brand of toilet paper preferred by consumers achieves nothing if you are looking for aberrant individuals. If it survives, perhaps in a thousand years it will be of interest to archaeologists.
Yes indeed, something of value might come of it eventually.
For example, Wal-Mart has the largest logistical database in the world. Florida had experienced a bad hurricane, and was expecting another, so Wal-Mart consulted its database to find out what products would be sold out, so it could bring in resupply before the fact.
Of the emergency supplies, by far at the head of the list were two stand out products: beer and strawberry Pop-Tarts(tm). This is what the public wanted, so Wal-Mart shipped in truck after truck of beer and strawberry Pop-Tarts. And they were right.
But what promise exists of a brilliantly data mined surveillance database coming up “beer and strawberry Pop-Tarts”, but with terrorists? Ironically far less than would be obtained through observation.
Wal-Mart could have saved a lot of time, effort, energy and money, by asking its store managers what products really sold before the last hurricane. They would have got the same answer, only faster, and with more confidence.
Everyone is guilty. You unwittingly break numerous laws every day. The "books" contain hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations that assume the color of law. Compliance is impossible.
Protection of natural rights is a duty of a rational and just government.But when spying is involved,there is a trade off between protection of natural rights and privacy. When safety is increased by spying, privacy is decreased and vice versa.It is hard to find the right balance.
2. What is the problem with the "I have nothing to hide, who cares?" argument?
It is about the use of force, secrecy,the growth of big intrusive government, and the assault on the universal principle of right to privacy that is important,and not whether or not one personally does not have anything to hide.Even if one does not have anything to hide, excessive spying is destructive to the country as a whole in the long run.It is not in the true interests of the country.
I am tackling #2 first: I think this quote explains very clearly why the argument for #2 is literally a false argument.
” According to Silverglate, the average busy professional commits three felonies every day—any of which an ambitious and creative prosecutor could turn into an indictment. Seemingly innocuous activities like using the telephone or e-mail at work, or posting information on Web sites could potentially lead to a federal offense if your tone strikes someone as threatening.” http://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/how-many-laws-did-you-break-today/
Now for our lovely Christian FReepers this should feel oddly reminiscent to ...’cast the first stone’ teaching. None are innocent and the Bible tells us so...
Now ...why is spying bad? In the case of our government spying on us , using vague laws as noted in the link above, it makes them able to persecute...oooppsss... I mean able to prosecute you or anyone for just about anything. And as we are vaguely witnessing now...gives them the power to black mail you for your entire lifetime. Whether it is you broke some arbitrary law and they intend to cash-in on your guilt or your Ipad caught you masturbating in the kitchen with a cantaloupe...spying if the first step too being able to control you against your will.
Beginning on page 411 of the 35th Anniversary Edition of Atlas Shrugged:
Dr. Ferris smiled. . . . . .”We’ve waited a long time to get something on you. You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you’d slip sooner or later - and this is just what we wanted.”
“You seem to be pleased about it.”
“Don’t I have good reason to be?”
“But, after all, I did break one of your laws.”
“Well, what do you think they’re for?”
Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden’s face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which he had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against - then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
Watching Dr. Ferris watch him, Rearden saw the sudden twitch of anxiety, the look that precedes panic, as if a clean card had fallen on the table from a deck Dr. Ferris had never seen before.
What Dr. Ferris was seeing in Rearden’s face was the look of luminous serenity that comes from the sudden answer to an old, dark problem, a look of relaxation and eagerness together; there was a youthful clarity in Rearden’s eyes and the faintest touch of contempt in the line of his mouth. Whatever this meant - and Dr. Ferris could not decipher it - he was certain of one thing: the face held no sign of guilt.
“There’s a flaw in your system, Dr. Ferris,” Rearden said quietly, almost lightly, “a practical flaw which you will discover when you put me on trial for selling four thousand tons of Rearden Metal to Ken Danagger.”
It took twenty seconds - Rearden could feel them moving past slowly - at the end of which Dr. Ferris became convinced that he had heard Rearden’s final decision.
“Do you think we’re bluffing?” snapped Dr. Ferris; his voice suddenly had the quality of the animals he had spent so much time studying: it sounded as if he were baring his teeth.
“I don’t know,” said Rearden. “I don’t care, one way or the other.”
“Are you going to be as impractical as that?”
“The evaluation of an action as ‘practical’, Dr. Ferris, depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.”
“Haven’t you always placed your self-interest above all else?”
If you think we’ll let you get away with a-”
“You will now please get out of here.”
“Whom do you think you’re fooling?” Dr. Ferris’ voice had risen close to the edge of a scream. “The day of the barons of industry is done! You’ve got the goods, but we’ve got the good on you, and you’re going to play it our way or you’ll-”
Rearden had pressed a button; Miss Ives entered the office.
“Dr. Ferris has become confused and lost his way, Miss Ives,” said Rearden. “Will you escort him out please?” He turned to Ferris. “Miss Ives is a woman, she weighs about a hundred pounds, and she has no practical qualifications at all, only a superlative intellectual efficiency. She would never do for a bouncer in a saloon, only in an impractical place, such as a factory.
Miss Ives looked as if she was performing a duty of no greater emotional significance than taking dictation about a list of shipping invoices. Standing straight in a disciplined manner of icy formality, she held the door open, let Dr. Ferris cross the room, then walked out first; Dr. Ferris followed.
She came back a few minutes later, laughing in uncontrollable exultation.
“Mr. Rearden,” she asked, laughing at her fear of him, at their danger, at everything but the triumph of the moment, “what is it you’re doing?”
He sat in a pose he had never permitted himself before, a pose he had resented as the most vulgar symbol of the businessman - he sat leaning back in his chair, with his feet on his desk - and it seemed to her that the posture had an air of peculiar nobility, that it was not the pose of a stuffy executive, but of a young crusader.
“I think I’m discovering a new continent, Gwen,” he answered cheerfully. “A continent that should have been discovered along with America, but wasn’t.”
>>> What is the problem with the “I have nothing to hide, who cares?” argument?
The NSA: Future Crime Unit (Jim Harper) CATO Institute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nARsYRMQKE&feature=player_embedded
This NSA stuff is a distraction that Obama welcomes. There probably is a drone with Snowden’s name on it.
It’s the matter of who’s spying. Banks, credit cards, grocery stores where we have those “club” cards, know more about us than the gummint. What power do these commercial interests have to use that info against us? Oh, yes, credit rating, spam, anything else?
And the power of the government? Does this question even needs to be asked?
My problem with it can be summed up in two words: slippery slope.
Or three: can of worms
Or two more: Pandora’s box
There’s no end to how much information “needs to be gathered” once the process begins, nor how it will be used (most likely adversely).
“1. Fundamentally what is wrong with being spied upon? “
You seriously have to ask that? How old are you?
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.
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