UPDATE: US Intelligence Official:People Must Redefine Privacy

[buckthesystem]

God didn't write the PATRIOT Act!!!!

Nor the UK Civil Contingencies Act!!!!!

Can you prove that? Or is this just something that you made up? Is it so hard to believe that God is in control of EVERYTHING?

Quit being so scared. The sky is not falling, but rest assured chicken little, that when the sky does fall...It will be by God's design.

Have I read this right? Are you saying that you believe that God DID write the PATRIOT Act and the Civil contingencies Act?

You know it is impossible to prove a negative, so provide some evidence that he did!

(If I'm not "seeing things" that is)

[Guest yod]

I can call Arkansas "hillbillies" if I want to. Until the Razorbacks beat the Longhorns, at least..

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl.../29/25139.shtml

everyone in the world seems to know that Clinton sold us out to the Chinese. where have you been?

[faith pleases God]

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 agree. Thats why we have to fight hard to just maintain the rights and privacies that we currently have. Not concede more.

[buckthesystem]

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 agree. Thats why we have to fight hard to just maintain the rights and privacies that we currently have. Not concede more.

Firstly, why is it not practical or possible to have absolute privacy?

It is reasonable for people to have the choice whether or not to concede their privacy. Obviously if you join the army or a sports club where you share a changing room with others, you expect to give up some of your physical privacy. Or even if you live in a household with six others, your privacy has to be compromised to a certain extent as well. However, those things are your choice. If you don't want to share information (or a bathroom) with anyone and remain strictly private, you can always go and live in a little hut in Alaska and hunt and fish for a living. However, you should be able to do this if you want to and not have to answer to any government agency.

What is the problem is government agencies who force people to give up private information, and try to disguise the fact by "redefining" the word "privacy".

I know it is often said that once a right has been given away, it is very rarely got back again. But this must not stop people from campaigning for just that. It is not impossible. Not only must we not concede more, but we also have to try to get back what has already been lost. It is absolutely essential.

[faith pleases God]

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 agree. Thats why we have to fight hard to just maintain the rights and privacies that we currently have. Not concede more.

Firstly, why is it not practical or possible to have absolute privacy?

It is reasonable for people to have the choice whether or not to concede their privacy. Obviously if you join the army or a sports club where you share a changing room with others, you expect to give up some of your physical privacy. Or even if you live in a household with six others, your privacy has to be compromised to a certain extent as well. However, those things are your choice. If you don't want to share information (or a bathroom) with anyone and remain strictly private, you can always go and live in a little hut in Alaska and hunt and fish for a living. However, you should be able to do this if you want to and not have to answer to any government agency.

What is the problem is government agencies who force people to give up private information, and try to disguise the fact by "redefining" the word "privacy".

I know it is often said that once a right has been given away, it is very rarely got back again. But this must not stop people from campaigning for just that. It is not impossible. Not only must we not concede more, but we also have to try to get back what has already been lost. It is absolutely essential.

I agree. We must gain back whats been lost. What I agreed with above is tracking systems have made it easier to be infringed upon. Like bank cards, cell phones, computers, etc.

[Burning_Ember]

I was too disgusted by some of what was written in this threa to post for a while. I've since regained the stomach to go back in. Underlined words are links.

'Burning_Ember'

A friend of mine donates to charity, went to non-violent peace protests, and cooked food for the homeless. Because of this, he was barred from entering the United States on penalty of being detained indefinitely if he tried to cross the border.

But y'know, thats not fascist in any manner whatsoever. That has happened plenty more than just that one case.

The Holy land Foundation is a charity. They raise money for Hamas under the pretense of helping kids in the middle-east while using the money to make Quassam rockets which they shoot every day into Sderot. They are terrorists.

The Palestinians had a non-violent "peace" protest on 9/11 with signs of "death to america". They are terrorists

Hezbollah and Hamas cook food for the homeless....most of which are homeless because of their policies. They are both terrorist organizations.

I expect that they would all be barred from our borders, too.

So the platitudes depend on exactly what your "friend" is doing because I know literally thousands of people who are giving money to charity and feeding the homeless without tying it to political dissidence and have no problems with the US government or INS.

This sickens me. You just compared good, honourable citizens who volunteer their time for the betterment of society, to terrorist organizations. I'm in Canada. Advocating genocide and use of speech is a big no-no, even during peace protests. These people have done nothing of the sort. They volunteer their time, cook food themselves, in downtown for the homeless people just like the Mustard Seed or United Way or Salvation Army... Simply because people were in peace protests against the Iraq war, were critical of the Administration, they have been put on terroist watch lists.

According to yod, this is the face of terrorism.

Those dirty terrorists, eh? Being dedicated to non-violence and feeding the homeless is such a crime. What you said in that post has been the most twisted thing I've seen in a long time.

What are the democrats supporting that encourages fascism? Y'know, that wasn't instituted by this administration.

The Dems hold a majority in Congress, don't they? Who do you think is voting in all the laws you are complaining about?

Again...the Dems have shown a willingness to abuse authority and use it against ordinary citizens. Ruby Ridge? Waco? Travelgate? kathleen willy? paula jones?

It doesn't matter anymore....fascism is on the way.

It isn't the Dems that are trying to change the definition of torture, and have it instituted, blatantly violating the Constitution. It was Rumsfeld who sent a memo to Abu Ghraib outlining several torture techniques, with "do this here" handwritten on it. It was Tom Delay that used Department of Homeland Security resources to track down a plane full of Democrats. It was a Republican who earmarked a bridge worth millions of dollars going to an island with less than a few dozen people on it.

Political corruption is on both sides of the fence, and trying to blame the democrats for what the Bush Administration has done, and calling them fascists while ignoring the vast abuses and the bills the Republicans have passed through is blatantly hypocritical.

You mind taking that plank out of your eye, there?

[Silver Shadow]

Well... I guess this is where we go into the mountains, living off of rabbits and mountain goats, with no-contact to the "Main Tribe" XD

[faith pleases God]

Well... I guess this is where we go into the mountains, living off of rabbits and mountain goats, with no-contact to the "Main Tribe" XD

To redefine privacy sounds like a re-negotiation with the citizens and government. We are in weird times!

[Guest yod]

Simply because people were in peace protests against the Iraq war, were critical of the Administration, they have been put on terroist watch lists.

According to yod, this is the face of terrorism.

Those dirty terrorists, eh? Being dedicated to non-violence and feeding the homeless is such a crime. What you said in that post has been the most twisted thing I've seen in a long time.

In the post I responded to, you didn't elaborate on who they were at all.... or what they were doing..... or why they were refused entry into the USA.

all I was saying is that it depends on those things before I could assume they were noble and honorable characters. From the information you have given, they weren't refused entry because they feed the homeless but rather because they are

a. foreigners

b. protesting America

America doesn't owe anyone who is protesting the USA entry into our country regardless of how many good works they might be doing in their own country. You may not like that but I'd bet Canada does the same thing.

It isn't the Dems that are trying to change the definition of torture, and have it instituted, blatantly violating the Constitution.

It was Rumsfeld who sent a memo to Abu Ghraib outlining several torture techniques, with "do this here" handwritten on it.

I hope you aren't trying to make me feel sorry for terrorists who got humiliation or deprived of sleep. Our boys got their heads cutt off and their bodies dragged through the streets. I don't give a rip about what happens to the people who would do that.

I wish they would allow WHATEVER MEASURES ARE NECESSARY and leave that up to the meanest S.O.B. commander we have.

It was Tom Delay that used Department of Homeland Security resources to track down a plane full of Democrats. It was a Republican who earmarked a bridge worth millions of dollars going to an island with less than a few dozen people on it.

I don't know what you're talking about but also don't see what that has to do with the OP

Political corruption is on both sides of the fence, and trying to blame the democrats for what the Bush Administration has done, and calling them fascists while ignoring the vast abuses and the bills the Republicans have passed through is blatantly hypocritical.

I'll repeat it slowly for you. Try to pay attention this time

Bush can do NOTHING without the Democrat Congress approval. There are many laws that allow too much government access to the private conversations of citizens. All of them needed Democrat approval.

To this day...you can't point to how the Bush Administration has abused this authority against ordinary American citizens. They have so far been used against enemies foreign and domestic as they were intended.

On the other hand, I can show you how democrats abused authority BEFORE these laws were enacted by Bush (to protect us against enemies). It is extrememly likely that the next Democrat administration (especially if it is Clinton) will take advantage of these new laws and use them against ordinary American citizens for their own political gain.

You mind taking that plank out of your eye, there?

if you take off that blindfold first...

[buckthesystem]

Going back to the OP: I found a really interesting article (below) on "the new view of 'privacy'", it concludes by saying "you can't turn back the tide of technology".

I know that this is a UK article, but apart from a very few things, it may as well have been written about the US as well.

However, my view is that this statement by itself is silly and meaningless, it assumes that "technology" is somehow at fault for governments wanting their people to have no privacy. OK, so technology is here to stay, it is not a bad thing, and should not be seen that way, but must be used responsibly and this means that government access must be severely limited if not stopped altogether - because various governments departments (everywhere) have proved without a doubt that they do not have the honesty or competence to handle technology relating to other people.

The article likes also to blame "(people) putting so much of our own personal data up on Facebook or MySpace". But this is like blaming a tramper carrying a box of matches for a forest fire, "Facebook" and "Myspace" are voluntary and in no way sinister and are not government controlled.

Anyway, here's the article:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7123887.stm

'There is no longer any privacy'

By David Calder

BBC Radio Scotland's The Investigation

Not so long ago, the Information Commissioner warned that we were "sleep-walking our way into a surveillance society".

At the time, a lot of people assumed he was talking about CCTV cameras.

But it's now clear he was more concerned about the amount of data held on each and every one of us which, if all brought together, would give the government an incredibly detailed view of our lives.

It was brought home all too clearly when Alistair Darling stood up in the House of Commons last month and admitted the loss of those CDs by HM Revenue and Customs.

You may have thought we had some protection from the Data Protection Act.

But Dr David Murakami Wood, a surveillance specialist from Newcastle University, believes it was out of date even before it came into force.

"It's based on a 1970s conception of computing," he explained.

"It came long before the networking of computers. You could now argue that how we exist in databases is as important as how we exist in the real world."

We should be trying to stop the unthinking proliferation of surveillance systems before it's too late

John Scott

Human rights lawyer

He edited a report on the surveillance society for the Information Commissioner. It makes quite disturbing reading, especially when you think about the plans for a national ID card.

"The National Identity Register will hold up to 50 pieces of information," he said.

"Everything from your national insurance number to your health record to the number of penalty points on your driving licence will be stored there, even information about when you buy a mobile phone."

That mobile phone is also storing a surprising amount of information about you.

From the start of October, the mobile phone companies will have to retain data about who you were calling, when you made the call and where you were when you made it.

And that information won't just be available to the police.

'No privacy'

According to Geraint Bevan of No2ID, 650 other organisations will be able to see it as well, from the Gaming Commission to local authorities.

"This data will be logged for a year," he said, "and every minor official could be able to have access to your phone records. There's no privacy anymore."

Then there's data from CCTV systems.

There have been various estimates of how many of these there are in the UK.

But Camera Watch, the industry body set up to ensure that systems are compliant with data protection, believes it's largely educated guesswork.

The numbers range from about four million to 10 million - no-one actually knows.

On top of all this, there's the data collected on you by the private sector.

If you use a loyalty card in a shop, that information is stored to build up a picture of your preferences.

Even more is gathered when you shop online. Banks and insurance companies also gather data about you and not everyone is convinced that it's all strictly necessary.

The human rights lawyer, John Scott, is worried by the way it's monitoring our lives but acknowledges that "you can't turn back the tide of technology".

He said: "We should stop and think about where we'll be in five or 10 years time. We should be trying to stop the unthinking proliferation of surveillance systems before it's too late."

Dr Murakami Wood, however, thinks we've brought a lot of this on our own heads by "putting so much of our own personal data up on Facebook or MySpace".

He added: "It's made officials think we don't value privacy any more."

He believes it's time for the country to have a serious national debate about our surveillance society before it goes any further.