Does a citizen retain a "right to privacy" if they are talking to Russian spies?

[kentuck]

Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Can they expect to remain masked and anonymous?

Was intelligence right in unmasking General Flynn?

Do Republicans have a strong argument against the government for invasion of their privacy rights?

Are innocent people being "unmasked"?

How do we know if no names are made public?

[H2O Man]

1. Nope.

Recommended.

[hughee99]

2. If they're not jeopardizing national security, then yes, they do. And even if they might be,

does a government have the right to reveal that information freely, without even filing charges or a trial? If it's not important enough to even seek charges, why is it okay to violate someone's privacy to the extent of publicly releasing their names?

I'm not trying to stick up for Flynn, but I really don't like to see rights tossed aside for political convenience.

[kentuck]

4. It depends on what the phrase "violate someone's privacy" means?

For a National Security Adviser to request that a name be "unmasked" in the pursuit of an investigation would not "violate someone's privacy", in my opinion.

[hughee99]

5. I agree. It's one thing for a National Security Adviser to ask for a person's name in pursuit of an

investigation, it's another if those names start appearing in the press.

I'm not thinking of this specifically in terms of what happened here, but this type of thing has an enormous potential for abuse and the danger of making a blanket determination that it's all just fine.

I'd also say that if someone had access to the conversation not knowing one of the principles in it, didn't hear anything that was a matter of national security but did hear politically "juicy" stuff, and then requested that persons identity, that would be pretty suspect too.

[kentuck]

6. It's easy to talk about "unmasking" but...

..it doesn't mean much if there are no names given as evidence.

[Jonny Appleseed]

3. Pretty much the one time they don't

I don't see rightwingers flipping out over "invasions of privacy" for that kid who got arrested trying to join ISIS online.

[sarah FAILIN]

10. true.

But they expect privacy for themselves..

[randome]

7. That's why they're masked in the first place.

You can't expect intelligence efforts to 'pretend' someone else wasn't present but they do a good job of keeping persons masked until proper procedures are followed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[BainsBane]

8. They kept his name out of the court documents

Evidently he didn't realize the guy was a spy, and he didn't have access to anything sensitive to turn over.
The Russians were trying to groom him, but I don't think Page actually broke the law.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. We spent the entire Bush administration discussing the FISA courts and how they're supposed to work.

That is, supposed to work legally and with warrants and whatnot.

The short answer to your question is, "no".