AHA! Why privacy is important. I finally got it.

[Gregorian]

Almost everyone has a cellphone with a camera. There's a good chance that wherever you go you're on screen. Why is that different than the invasion from the NSA, I was asking? I don't really have a problem with being on someone's cellphone camera.

Then I realized the difference. It's pretty obvious, but it seems to have gone under the radar.

The reason why privacy from our government is important is because they have power. The person on the street taking photos with their phone does not have the potential to ruin my life. The government is susceptible to abusing the power they have, and that is the reason why there is a FISA court in the first place.

It's not about just privacy. There is more to the picture. It's about privacy from a potential monster.

[H2O Man]

1. Exactly.

Recommended.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Congratulations.

Here s one for ya to mull on, they can use that cell phone to monitor you, even when powered off.

[dkf]

3. You got it.

[RobertEarl]

4. dkf

Have you had some kind of revelation that is bringing out a different dkf than the one that used to get ragged on all the time? Or am i thinking of someone else?

[dkf]

9. I'm still the same...

Just aimed in a direction I never realistically thought would have to be defended (in tin hat territory). I feel so naive in believing our rights would be there, and especially had no idea that the guy I supported would be the most egregious violator. I am so very disappointed, disheartened really.

This puts what others here have said into new perspective so maybe I did have a bit of a "eureka" moment.

[RobertEarl]

16. Welcome to our nightmare

I remember, in 2008, the new faces coming out in support for Obama.

I could not shake the feeling that they were expecting more than he could deliver.

Didn't want them to go back into their shells, so just let it slide, because getting rid of the republicans was the end that justified the means.

Don't be too disheartened, Obama is up against the most powerful political machine the world has even known. Progress will be slow. And it can only be realized via the people coming together and pushing in one direction. Which is what we did getting Obama elected. That was just the beginning, hang in there.

[dkf]

20. I honestly feel this is the most significant issue I will confront in my lifetime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Hugs

[dkf]

63. You knew Nadin...when you saw occupy....

I didn't get it til this...

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. People get it at different points in their lives.

And it is what you do once you do. It is frightening beyond belief.

[JackRiddler]

18. Oh, shit!

Where's the hug smiley?



D'oh, that's just my reaction. Sorry, here we go:

[dkf]

28. Thanks.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. Strange bedfellows

I don't mind admitting publicly that I never agreed with much of anything dkf said on non-NSA issues in years past. I now find that dkf and I appear to have many areas of agreement in terms of the NSA/spying stories. I think this goes to show that when it really comes down to it, when it's brass-tacks time, people of principle stick with their espoused ideals, rather than sticking with some fallible human who has strayed from those ideals.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Same here

[uponit7771]

5. I disagree....

...that Americas government, with the way it is setup now, can become a monster without the help of it's ciitzens

[Hydra]

39. No, the Gov't can be a nightmare to various people

Ask Maher Arar.

In a way though, you're right- for it to become full-blown, in full daylight crazy, they need to know that people won't object.

They don't need support, they just need enough people to be silent and accept it.

Seeing the dialog this week, I have to wonder if they don't have it?

[NutmegYankee]

6. Correct!

This isn't mistrust, or hatred of Government. We the people just don't want this kind of power in it's hands. It doesn't have to be malicious, your life can be ruined from a mere bureaucratic screw up.

[darkangel218]

8. +1000

[L0oniX]

7. The FISA court is a non elected clown possy.

[Skidmore]

10. The problem with your analysis is that the person on the street also

has the same amount of power to destroy your life too. All they have to do is upload your picture and some accusation to the internet and it becomes viral. You spend the rest of your life explaining to the world why that picture of you shouldn't go with the information someone made up about you. I can cost you jobs, relationships, and about anything else you want to name. How many times have we heard about this type of thing happening on the news?

There is no privacy. The nation gave it away when it elected to surf the electronic beaches and live in convenience land. No one wants to give up their palm computer.

[Gregorian]

12. That's not quite the same. I use the word "you" as it applies to millions, not a few.

You're right, and I had thought of it. But what you mention almost always applies to high profile personalities. But not to a potential fraction of the entire society. Even the McCarthy commie hunt only blacklisted a fairly small number of people. But this is widespread, and like a large dragnet, with all kinds of implications.

[HappyMe]

13. This is exactly right.

Any clown with a smart phone can take your picture or a video of a completely innocent situation, slap it on YouTube or anywhere - and BOOM the shit hits the fan.
I believe there have been articles posted here where people have had lives ruined by FB. Recently someone filmed some guys talking about their sex lives. That was on YouTube and it went viral and was on national news.
Frankly I distrust fellow citizens with their phones and the need to go viral.

[lastlib]

25. the clown with a smartphone can't put you in jail--or a gulag

(...or Gitmo) Nor can he point a drone with a Hellfire missile at you--yet.

[HappyMe]

26. I seriously doubt anybody is

going to put me in Gitmo or a gulag or fire a missle at me.

[Hydra]

40. You're posting on DU

Unless you are posting on behalf of the NSA or subsidiaries, that puts you on the list. They don't need a reason to pick people up now, so don't expect due process to protect you.

[HappyMe]

41. If I was at all paranoid, I wouldn't be posting here.

"They don't need a reason to pick people up now, so don't expect due process to protect you." You really believe that?

If you are that worried, maybe you shouldn't be posting here.

[Hydra]

43. That ship sailed years ago

I criticized the Bush Admin and the FISA decision pre-election.

Regarding the tinfoil comment, you ARE aware that not only can they pick you up, they can drone you at the President's word, so I'm not sure why you're feeling comfy while they read our current discussion at the NSA voyeur lounge.

[HappyMe]

44. Drone me?

[jeff47]

45. Sure they can. It just doesn't have bars on the doors.

You can be just as trapped, you just won't have physical restraints trapping you. For example, if you can't get a job, you aren't going to be able to do a vast array of things.

As an added bonus, when you complain about it, people just tell you to "get over it". When there's actual bars, people will believe you when you say you're trapped.

[ohheckyeah]

22. You can sue the individual....

you can't sue the federal government.

[jeff47]

47. And you can collect the $1.47 they have in assets.

Boy, that's really gonna make up for it.

[ohheckyeah]

48. Wow you must be

psychic. You know how much in assets everybody has - I'm truly impressed.

[Th1onein]

51. This is really a silly, useless comment that adds nothing to the discussion.

Why'd you bother?

[ohheckyeah]

52. Why'd you bother to respond

to a silly, useless comment with one of your own that adds nothing to the discussion?

[Th1onein]

53. I responded to enlighten you. Was of no use, though, I guess. nt

[ohheckyeah]

54. You'd have to know something on which to enlighten me.

You don't.

[Th1onein]

70. LOLOL!

Wow. None are so blind as he who will NOT see.

[treestar]

67. Agreed

Nearly everyone is carrying around a camera now. Look at that case of the guy who grabbed his wife by the neck. You're in public, you can be recorded.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

It doesn't matter who has the camera. If you are in public you can't expect privacy.


There is an expectation of privacy within your own home. Again, it doesn't matter who has the camera, your privacy should not be violated.

[darkangel218]

15. You are correct, Sir.

[klook]

72. That's the key point that so many miss.

Thank you for the succinct explanation of this fundamental principle of privacy.

[alc]

14. true. also, what an individual can collect VS everything the government can collect differ

Millions of people with 100s of photos/videos each can't do much. Each "database" those individuals have only tells little bits about a few people.

But if you put all those together in a single database, you can tell A LOT about almost everyone in the database. As you mention, the government can misuse that database to our detriment. They will have data on every politician, judge, candidate, CEO, non-profit leaders, union leaders, etc. Unfortunately many of those people have something to hide and also have an affect on our lives (e.g. vote for legislation, strike down laws, lobby for laws, etc)

[Gregorian]

17. The G8 was being bugged. This was on Amy Goodman this morning.

Intense bugging of blackberries and emails. They were trying to get information in a clandestine fashion.

This in effect disrupts the process of communication. We all have thoughts that we don't express. God help us when they can read our minds. We'd all be in jail for some of the thoughts we would never express.

[JackRiddler]

19. That is so true. Thank you, and...

When government power against individual rights is extended, it may not turn into tyranny immediately. But you never know what government you're going to have later. All beginnings in that direction must be guarded against. And we are very, very, very, very far along in that direction.

[The Second Stone]

21. The Boston Marathon bombings were solved by people's cell

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

phone photos and old fashioned police work. Not NSA wiretapping. Only in an alternate universe has the NSA prevented the Boston Marathon bombings.

[Coccydynia]

29. You make an excellent point:

With all the data that is being gathered for our protection, why was this event completely missed?

Perhaps the data being gathered isn't to thwart terrorists acts, rather this data is being gathered to later undermine dissident acts.

[treestar]

68. But then the government was said not to have connected the dots

They "failed" to wiretap Tamerlan. Which would have been an invasion of his privacy before he was known to be guilty.

[LWolf]

23. Yes.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be capturing my image on camera, video or still, or possessing it, without my permission, period. I realize how unrealistic that seems in the modern world, but I still feel that way. I, and my image, belong to no one.

[backscatter712]

24. Exactly. This is why the three-letter agencies desperately need to be leashed! n/t

[Life Long Dem]

27. B. Clinton "It is what it is"

Clinton talks about the NSA wanting to read foreign emails the same way they can read an envelope without opening the letter by law. Thing is I think they read the whole email.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/clinton-on-nsa-be-careful-what-s-in-your-emails-9kn0wqiYSiedbASmA8XYKw.html?cmpid=taboola.video

[graham4anything]

30. Oh wait, never mind, thought you were talking about the 2nd amendment.

I would trust the individual in the street with the gun and bullet who is not law enforcement or the national guard (i.e. the militia talked about in the 2nd) ZERO.

It is why the 2nd needs to be reinterpreted and forever ZERO guns and bullets in the street.

After all, if only Zimmy were packing a cell phone camera.

Privacy? Please, pass me a cigarette, I think there's one in my raincoat. But she said (and it was true)
The man in the gabardene suit was a spy. Be careful his bowtie really is a camera.-Paul Simon(c)

[img][/img]

[ErikJ]

31. Corporate private monsters

70% of the NSA budget is for private spy contractors. And Google and Facebook read every email you send with robots.

[WillyT]

32. K & R !!!

[Cleita]

33. You got it. The guy with the cell phone taking pictures of the beach that you happen

to be on at that time, cannot do you any real harm, unless you are Mel Gibson and your drunken picture at a bar with some women that are not his wife gets on TV coast to coast. Still, although it probably cost him his marriage, he did not end up in jail that time. On the other hand, the cop who has a video cam on the dash of his cruiser can and will arrest him if he's driving while under the influence. Apparently, that too did happen to him.

It is a matter of power. Employers do it to their employees all the time and they have the power to fire them. Having your government willy nilly monitoring all your communication devices can be used against you. Maybe the Obama administration is benign in its use and really just wants to ferret out terrorists, but what happens when we get our next Republican ghouls, who stole an election, in power and they want to put in jail anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian because Jesus told them to? I say we need to force them to stick to the Fourth Amendment and get warrants first. That is the ultimate law of the land and until the Fourth Amendment is repealed, no other laws making this okay are really legal.

I wish some activist lawyers, like Mike Papantonio and company, would look into this.

[Gregorian]

34. I was thinking of the next Republican administration too.

If it weren't for the authoritarians, we probably wouldn't even need the Constitution. It was because of their types that we have it.

My fear is that unless we can utilize measures to shut off the spying, it will continue regardless of what laws we put in place.

[Cleita]

38. The Constitution is still the means that we have, but no one in power seems to think we

need to follow it. We need a whole new Congress and for that we need election reform. Remember back when we really discussed election reform here at DU and Andy Stephenson led the movement before he died? Even troll Bev Harris shined a light on the need for it by pointing out the flaws in electronic voting not having a paper trail. Although her motives were self-serving, Andy's were pure patriotism. Yet here we are, after two stolen Bush elections, and nothing has been done about our elections. In fact they have gotten worse now with the gerrymandering enabling the Tea Party Rethugs to control the House and actually the Senate through filibuster. We need real change NOW!

[Gregorian]

57. This really brings back memories. And fury.

Today I've been thinking just how much I've grown in the last 10 years. No, I was only looking from the outside in when Andy was here. And the whole Bev Harris thing was a whirlwind to me. I mention it because as I've stated recently that getting out of our situation is a Catch-22, my growth is part of it. I had no idea, and a big fraction of Americans still have no idea what is really going on. Thanks to propaganda, poor education, and a number of things, Americans are in the dark.

I've also been asking what it's going to take to turn it around. This must be more than a place where we communicate for our own benefit. We're in a big sinkhole, and it's looking bad. A few more years of a Democrat in the White House, and it could be another turn for another blow to the country, if we're unlucky. Democracy Now is on a handful of stations plagued by poverty. Noam Chomsky isn't on national tv every night. Fear and greed have won. This is why I cheer at the revelations regarding the activities of the NSA. Maybe that's just the catalyst we need to wake enough people up.

[felix_numinous]

35. Same reason you don't talk with police

because these days they have an incentive to find and incarcerate people.

The idea now is to objectify and quantify our personal space as if it is just another piece of turf to acquire--and yes, to be used against us in the court of law.

[midnight]

36. Thank you....

[hfojvt]

42. actually, I have just as much power to ruin your life

at least in theory.

For example, if somebody's only child was killed, that would pretty much ruin their life, wouldn't it? Some people do things like that on purpose, some in anger and some by accident.

We generally pay the government and count on police, DA's and prisons to ruin THEIR life if they do so. We want the government to ruin the lives - of criminals.

Now you might say that - the government can do so LEGALLY whereas a private citizen can only do so illegally (or accidentally). But is that true? To some degree the government is under more compunction to obey the law than private citizens are.

For example, private citizens are often free to speed while they drive and run red lights. Many people do both every day. Myself, I run a dozen stops signs a day on my bicycle.

Now, the government could, hypothetically, decide I was a threat somehow. Maybe Obama does not like all the times I called him out on his lies (this would require a fantasy land where people were actually listening to me and taking my complaints seriously). In this fantasyland, they could start dogging me, catching me every time my car went to fast, writing me a couple of stop sign violations every day (and some on DU would be cheering if this happened).

I would consider THAT type of politically-motivated selective prosecution to be an abuse of power. However, if that happens, we should be hearing from some of the victims of this kind of abuse. Until there are actual victims, then I do not believe a crime, by the government, has been committed.

Show me some victims, if you expect me to care.

[Gregorian]

49. That's not a concerted effort on as large a scale.

Also, you don't have a military arsenal at your disposal. There's a very big difference between what we in public life can do, and what our government can do.

[hfojvt]

55. military power is not used domestically

by law.

The police have arsenals of weapons, but so do some private citizens, including some criminal elements. These mass shooters show that it is not that hard, if one wants to, to cause tremendous amounts of damage just with a few pistols - see Virginia Tech. The National Security Agency is presumably battling other large organizations - mafias, other governments, etc. Or even some Tea Party or Occupy type group that has the power to disrupt, riot, even though they don't have enough public support to win elections.

Reginald Denny could tell you that a rioting mob can ruin your life (or take it) as well.

[Cleita]

61. The National Guard is used domestically and has been in the past.

Remember Kent State and I remember them patrolling the streets of Los Angeles during the first Watt's riot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. DOD has now plans to work internally

No, that is nota conspiracy, neither is the NDAA.

[TheKentuckian]

50. By the time you care, it will way too late to do anything about it, if we ever hear about it at all

due to the secrecy. Many could have already been victimized as you outline and there is no way to prove it because we don't have access supporting information and they are just lumped in with anyone else facing similar charges.

You talk about running lights like law enforcement doesn't do so all the time (in addition to EMS and Fire flicking on the lights and sirens to go through and then resumes normal cruising).

Your entire post is a cop out that puts the burden of proof on those without access and "trust" in the hands of those holding all the cards, including ones we can neither prove or disprove are in the deck.

[hfojvt]

56. I don't see how "many" could be victimized

this isn't the twentieth century. The "government" cannot victimize me without lots of people knowing about it - coworkers, neighbors, relatives, friends. people from my church, etc.

As for burden of proof, well why not? In the case of any crime, I would want to know 1) where are the victims, and 2) where is the proof?

As for trust, there has to be a certain amount of that in any job. You trust people until you have some evidence that you cannot. You kinda cannot expect the police to wear flashing neon uniforms and be filmed all the time and still be able to sneak up on criminals. It's like saying the public cannot trust Officer Krupke, so he needs to put down a schedule of where he is at all times and what he is doing. Well, wouldn't that be handy information for the criminals to have? He patrols this street at 9 pm and isn't due back until 11, so we have two hours to rob this place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Seriously, you should read a tad more

Into how totalitarian states work...no, not nazi Germany, the Stasi, use the panopticon while at it.

That said, Eichmann in Jerusalem is apropo here...your attitude is well...similar to that of many Germans. For that matter the citizens of most totalitarian states. Germany is just the most familiar.

Yes it can, and is happening here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Gotta say..this was not a challenge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield

Yup, I will make the argument it was a victim.

[hfojvt]

73. dang, I had never heard of him

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3022017

Plus, from 2004 to 2013, we now are at the rate of 1 victim every nine years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. They told us none

That we had none.

And it took me five seconds

[WinkyDink]

46. Better late than never. :-)

[bobduca]

58. Authoritarian Smear Merchants don't see the monster

they are the Monster's bared teeth.

[Demo_Chris]

69. This and more... the potential threat alone is a use of force...

And a curb on liberty. If this is okay and privacy no longer matters, why not an officer in every home following you around and recording everything you do and say? After all, if you have nothing to hide why worry! This officer can film you masturbating or screwing your significant other, he can document that skin condition, he can record that website you paused at (wait, was that a teen girl? Was she really over 18? Are you SURE?), and search the database for any possible connections. Have you smoked weed recently? Do you own an arrowhead? You know that Eagle feather on your wall... the one you found when you were camping? All those things are felonies you know. In fact, so is owning anything over a hundred years old, they just don't enforce that one -- though in YOUR case they might make an exception. How often do you yell at your kids? Sounds like an abusive parent to me. How many beers a day do you drink? When was the last time you crossed the speed limit? If you cannot remember no problem, they are keeping track.

And by the way, you know all those anti-government posts you started to type on DU? The ones you never sent?

The government needs to know. It's the only way to keep us safe.

[BlueCheese]

71. I would also add...

... that even if one trusts the current president to not abuse the power and information he claims he has (and I actually do), we can't say the same about future presidents.

Our government is supposed to be constrained by laws, not by the kindness of the leader. The kind of surveillance the NSA is doing has truly terrible potential, and rather than trust the next leader not to abuse it, it'd be best if that kind of danger didn't exist in the first place.