UPDATE: US Intelligence Official:People Must Redefine Privacy

[ayin jade]

WASHINGTON (AP)--As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the U.S. changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the U.S. without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private emails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.

Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Lawsuits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission.

Click here for rest of the article.

[Axxman]

Its been that way for a long time. Most Americans operate under an 'illusion of privacy." But I don't think anybody really feels all that private. And honestly...its not really practical, let alone possible, to have absolute privacy.

[nebula]

Its been that way for a long time. Most Americans operate under an 'illusion of privacy." But I don't think anybody really feels all that private. And honestly...its not really practical, let alone possible, to have absolute privacy.

I just have a flash remembrance of Mrs. Olson as a telephone operator on Little House on the Prairie.

[forrestkc]

Its been that way for a long time. Most Americans operate under an 'illusion of privacy." But I don't think anybody really feels all that private. And honestly...its not really practical, let alone possible, to have absolute privacy.

Why not? Lets say I make a call to family in the next state. Assuming I am not suspected of doing something illegal and thus a court order has not been obtained to wiretap my phone, why should I not expect my conversation to be completely private?

[Axxman]

Its been that way for a long time. Most Americans operate under an 'illusion of privacy." But I don't think anybody really feels all that private. And honestly...its not really practical, let alone possible, to have absolute privacy.

Why not? Lets say I make a call to family in the next state. Assuming I am not suspected of doing something illegal and thus a court order has not been obtained to wiretap my phone, why should I not expect my conversation to be completely private?

Well first it depends on HOW you make the call. If you use a cell phone...you can forget any resembalance of privacy. Those calls can be picked out of mid-air. Using a landline is 'more private' but again you are talking about an electronic conversation being routed through several different locations that ccan be traced.

I don't think the Intellegence Official sited in the OP meant we should all forget about privacy. What he meant was that technologies have reached a point were absolute privacy just isn't really possible. In fact, just about the ONLY way I can think of to regain any form of privacy is to avoid technology at all costs. Of course, that in itself would raise suspicions. What he said was...privacy doesn't equal anonymity.

[forrestkc]

Well first it depends on HOW you make the call. If you use a cell phone...you can forget any resembalance of privacy. Those calls can be picked out of mid-air. Using a landline is 'more private' but again you are talking about an electronic conversation being routed through several different locations that ccan be traced.

I don't think the Intellegence Official sited in the OP meant we should all forget about privacy. What he meant was that technologies have reached a point were absolute privacy just isn't really possible. In fact, just about the ONLY way I can think of to regain any form of privacy is to avoid technology at all costs. Of course, that in itself would raise suspicions. What he said was...privacy doesn't equal anonymity.

The question is not could someone intercept your communications, its should the government be doing so absent judicial oversight.

[ayin jade]

Axxman, I suggest you read the article closely. The official meant that the govt should be allowed to view all communications by everyone, without any need to prove to a court that it merits a search warrant or whatever it is they need currently. The official is talking about redefining privacy so it doesnt mean privacy, and hence we no longer have the right to true privacy. Its a step to the antichrist.

[KeilanS]

I think that a governing body gaining the power to watch everyone at any time is the beginning of the end for a free state. It all goes downhill from there. First it's the terrorists they're watching for, then it's criminals or the mentally unstable, then before you know it, people are vanishing because they question the government.

[Guest]

With Grace

Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

Hebrews 12:28

Show The Light

No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.

Luke 11:33

Because Now Is The Day

(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

2 Corinthians 6:2

Of Salvation

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

Hosanna!

This Little Light Of Mine Hymn

This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.

This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

Won't let Satan blow it out.

I'm gonna let it shine.

Won't let Satan blow it out.

I'm gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

Let it shine til Jesus comes.

I'm gonna let it shine.

Let it shine til Jesus comes.

I'm gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

Hide it under a bushel - NO!

I'm gonna let it shine.

Hide it under a bushel - NO!

I'm gonna let it shine, Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

Let it shine over the whole wide world,

I'm gonna let it shine.

Let it shine over the whole wide world,

I'm gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

http://www.hymns.me.uk/this-little-light-o...vorite-hymn.htm

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Axxman]

I think that a governing body gaining the power to watch everyone at any time is the beginning of the end for a free state. It all goes downhill from there. First it's the terrorists they're watching for, then it's criminals or the mentally unstable, then before you know it, people are vanishing because they question the government.

There's a "Free State?" Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory to me. Privacy...free states...disappearing people...scary!