Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
the United States 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 United States 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 e-mails 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. Suits might be the only way to determine
how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court
permission.

The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
suits are pending.

The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass
through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003
that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call,
e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action suit,
claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.

The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
immunity from suits such as this one.

Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails and
listen to their phone calls without court oversight.

Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that he
finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
"perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service provider)
who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to
handle their data."

He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and
$100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.

Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea
of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
that's typed in their name on Google understands that."

"Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety,"
Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already
are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we
want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or
do something equally bad elsewhere."

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy laws
and American history.

"Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written
under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
together."

Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
information in exchange for a service.

"There is something fundamentally different from the government having
information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to
give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
tools and sacrificing their privacy."

"It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.


(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=106257

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

jim added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for
> government
> eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time
> that people in the United States 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 United States 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 e-mails 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. Suits might be the only
> way to determine how far the government has burrowed into
> people's privacy without court permission.
>
> The committee is expected to decide this week whether
> its version of
> the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40
> wiretapping suits are pending.
>
> The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T
> says the
> government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls
> as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San
> Francisco.
>
> Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a
> device in 2003
> that he says diverted and copied onto a government
> supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on
> AT&T lines.
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the
> class-action suit,
> claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
>
> The White House has promised to veto any bill that does
> not grant
> immunity from suits such as this one.
>
> Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by
> Thanksgiving. It
> would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy
> groups and civil libertarians say allows the government to
> read Americans' e-mails and listen to their phone calls
> without court oversight.
>
> Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San
> Antonio that he
> finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd
> when people are "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at
> an (Internet service provider) who may or may have not have
> been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their
> data."
>
> He noted that government employees face up to five years
> in prison and
> $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private
> information.
>
> Millions of people in this country - particularly young
> people -
> already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites
> such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These
> sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what
> was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics
> and credit card numbers.
>
> "Those two generations younger than we are have a very
> different idea
> of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect
> about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to
> inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting
> anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed
> in their name on Google understands that."
>
> "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which
> focuses on
> privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and
> public safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really
> take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms
> of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we want in place to
> be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do
> something equally bad elsewhere."
>
> Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic
> Frontier
> Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech,
> privacy and intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument
> ignores both privacy laws and American history.
>
> "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist
> Papers were written
> under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous
> power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to
> take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out
> on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing
> if it is the government that is trying to tie it together."
>
> Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between
> sacrificing
> protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily
> disclosing information in exchange for a service.
>
> "There is something fundamentally different from the
> government having
> information about you than private parties," he said. "We
> shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking
> advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their
> privacy."
>
> "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he
> said.
>
>
> (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights
> Reserved.)
>
> http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=106
> 257

Seems like we really do need some sort of change in the White House
in 2008. it'd be nice if we could get it earlier, but we cannot.
I'm not an attorney thus hardly a Constitutional law expert, but my
simple engineer's mind in reading the Bill of Rights and the "due
process of law" clause of the 14th amendment strongly suggests that
the post-9/11 Big Brother changes brought about by FISA being
emasculated and this thing people think is the Patriot Act has
pretty much destroyed the Bill of Rights. Now, besides what this
Intel guy says that I think is, as the Brits would say, Spot On,
there is also the issue of some number, perhaps into the millions,
of ordinary U.S. Postal Service mail being opened by the bully boys
and girls. And, I believe it is in 2009 that new Federal
requirements to state-issued driver's licenses to facilitate
central tracking takes effect. Now, too bad the same Beltway Boys
(and Girls) that have so blatantly ignored the law and their own
oaths of office don't have the same candor when asked to explain
their actions. And then, we have the issue of illegal aliens. Some
think the number is 12 million, others north of 20. Whatever the
number, the bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the
president mandating an 800 mile double fence across the border to
Mexico will never be finished, the Border Patrol is literally
scared blind into total inaction lest they too get jail time for
enforcing the law, and ICE simply sends the illegals back. Maybe
I've missed something small here, but I think I grasp the bigger
picture: it is only a VERY small step before all of us law abiding
citizens of this great country, the United States of America, will
be required to carry "papers" and travel authorizations reminiscent
of those required of French citizens during the Nazi occupation of
France for nearly 5 years. Think it cannot happen here? Well, think
again. Besides said FISA and USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), we have the historical
precedents of the Alien and Sedition Act during John Adams 2nd term
and the Sedition Act in Woodrow Wilson's 2nd term. Both made it a
federal crime to even criticize an elected official, so Lord knows
what such a law might be like with today's "activist" judges who
like more and more to legislate from the bench. Thankfully, the 2
prior sedition laws were overturned by the Supreme Court as being
unconstitutional, but the spectre of Big Brother from the George
Orwell novel "1984" looms ever and ever larger. I'll end this rant
by observing that if any of what I think is going on is at all what
is really going on, the Intel prediction is correct, and the horror
of civil libertarians everywhere is well-founded then it may well
come to pass that the Feds break down the door to our homes, arrest
us, and confiscate our PCs because they've been monitoring our E-
mails, Usenet posts, and web sites/hits and determined that we are
some perverted terrorist planning an attack. This quote from the
Holcaust sums it up a different way:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was
not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak
out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade
unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade
unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak
out for me" - Jewish saying from the Holocaust

--
HP, aka Jerry

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

That was a rather misleading title.

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith
wrote:
> That was a rather misleading title.

Yeah; when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
spies.

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

bmillerjacobson@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith
> wrote:
>> That was a rather misleading title.
>
> Yeah; when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
> spies.
>

The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is a
misnomer anyway :)

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

The Privacy Act of 1974 basically insinuated you have none.

The law protecting your medical record privacy wasn't meant for you. It was
meant for the medical professionals.

If you believe otherwise, oh well.

--
Dave
Profound is we're here due to a chance arrangement
of chemicals in the ocean billions of years ago.
More profound is we made it to the top of the food
chain per our reasoning abilities.
Most profound is the denial of why we may
be on the way out.
"jim" wrote in message
news:CgPZi.2095$K35.980@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
> eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
> the United States 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 United States 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 e-mails 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. Suits might be the only way to
> determine
> how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court
> permission.
>
> The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
> the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
> suits are pending.
>
> The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
> government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they
> pass
> through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
>
> Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in
> 2003
> that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every
> call,
> e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action
> suit,
> claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
>
> The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
> immunity from suits such as this one.
>
> Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
> would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
> civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails
> and
> listen to their phone calls without court oversight.
>
> Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that
> he
> finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
> "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service
> provider)
> who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States
> to
> handle their data."
>
> He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison
> and
> $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
>
> Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
> already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
> MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
> public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
> information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.
>
> "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea
> of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
> lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
> said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
> that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
>
> "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
> privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public
> safety,"
> Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already
> are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards
> we
> want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account
> or
> do something equally bad elsewhere."
>
> Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
> intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy
> laws
> and American history.
>
> "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were
> written
> under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
> police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
> together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
> far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
> together."
>
> Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
> protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
> information in exchange for a service.
>
> "There is something fundamentally different from the government
> having
> information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have
> to
> give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
> tools and sacrificing their privacy."
>
> "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.
>
>
> (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
>
> http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=106257
>
>
>

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

> The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is a
> misnomer anyway :)

Good lord .. you sure can tell there is a writers strike ...
you need 21st century material .. bone up man.

lets see .. an oxy'maroon ....
liberal intelligence?
or is that nuance?
or perhaps the 'narrative'
or perhaps fake but BOGUS?

or misdirection?

or for the greater good?

heh

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

Rich wrote:
>> The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is
>> a misnomer anyway :)
>
> Good lord .. you sure can tell there is a writers strike ...
> you need 21st century material .. bone up man.
>
> lets see .. an oxy'maroon ....
> liberal intelligence?
> or is that nuance?
> or perhaps the 'narrative'
> or perhaps fake but BOGUS?
>
> or misdirection?
>
> or for the greater good?
>
> heh


Hehe, the problem is actually complacency I think... judging from some
of the newsgroup posters (not these groups particularly) who defend this
erosion of privacy.

The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody)
from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal /
thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after
the bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is
though that although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else
knows that, so you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to
believe such legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists /
criminals etc) is a complete fallacy.

Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect
us from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any danger
from terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it was much
"Easier" to go along with it than to think about it :)

In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it makes
their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply complies...

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

"Charlie Tame" wrote in message
news:e3dl%23pOJIHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> bmillerjacobson@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith
>> wrote:
>>> That was a rather misleading title.
>>
>> Yeah; when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
>> spies.
>>
>
> The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is a
> misnomer anyway :)
>

it gets tougher, as you get older, to talk about a lack of intelligence in
government, without also questioning the intelligence of the citizens who
put those people there in the first place, and continue to do so, election
after election.

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

jim wrote:

> Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
> eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
> the United States 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 United States 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 e-mails 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. Suits might be the only way to
> determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy
> without court permission.
>
> The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
> the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
> suits are pending.
>
> The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
> government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they
> pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
>
> Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in
> 2003
> that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every
> call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action
> suit,
> claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
>
> The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
> immunity from suits such as this one.
>
> Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
> would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
> civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails
> and listen to their phone calls without court oversight.
>
> Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that
> he
> finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
> "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service
> provider) who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the
> United States to handle their data."
>
> He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison
> and
> $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
>
> Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
> already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
> MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
> public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
> information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.
>
> "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different
> idea
> of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
> lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
> said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
> that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
>
> "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
> privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public
> safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what
> we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what
> safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our
> bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere."
>
> Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
> intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy
> laws and American history.
>
> "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were
> written
> under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
> police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
> together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
> far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
> together."
>
> Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
> protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
> information in exchange for a service.
>
> "There is something fundamentally different from the government
> having
> information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have
> to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
> tools and sacrificing their privacy."
>
> "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.
>
>
> (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
>
> http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=106257

All I care about is this... PLEASE don't base this on windows.... PLEASE!


--

Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

john wrote:
> "Charlie Tame" wrote in message
> news:e3dl%23pOJIHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> bmillerjacobson@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith
>>> wrote:
>>>> That was a rather misleading title.
>>> Yeah; when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
>>> spies.
>>>
>> The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is a
>> misnomer anyway :)
>>
>
> it gets tougher, as you get older, to talk about a lack of intelligence in
> government, without also questioning the intelligence of the citizens who
> put those people there in the first place, and continue to do so, election
> after election.
>
>


100% agree, but of course the choice of who they "Can" put there is
limited. It "Should" be possible for any American to become President,
but it is not. Only by passing through a number of filters can this be
done because the system imposes eligibility rules that are as much
designed to preserve the system as anything else :)

The system has also learned to reward those with the wrong priorities,
not because there is some "Definition" of right and wrong but because
either is "Wrong" taken to excess. The system has "Evolved" to preserve
itself, and just as in real life the strongest is not always the "Best".

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

> The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody)
> from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal /
> thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after the
> bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is though that
> although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else knows that, so
> you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to believe such
> legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists / criminals etc)
> is a complete fallacy.

where does common sense enter into the equation?
want another common fallacy?
Privacy is about protection of my privacy :)
Privacy are mostly about blindfolding the 'cops'

here is another nugget to THINK on

follow the liberal line of reasoning, NOBODY DO ANYTHING and wait for your
stuff to all go wrong while ..
at the same time yammer why all the other guys stuff is going wrong and then
make sure you are the first on your feet to demand an answer to "WHY DID'NT
SOMEONE DO SOMETHING?"


> Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect us
> from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any danger from
> terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it was much
> "Easier" to go along with it than to think about it :)

Speaking of armchair generals
how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its immoral .. heh
how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its illegal .. heh
How about the Democrat 'leadership' in congress .. the ultimate definition
of "ARMCHAIR"

> In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it makes
> their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply complies...

oh, reality based are we? Of course a government can protect you .. that's
why there is a military ...
centers for disease control .. air traffic control regs .. et al.
What in your estimation would have been the outcome of WWII had there been
no government?

Sorry Charlie,
looks as if the more you THINK about it, the sillier you become
might want to stop pretending and start .... what? real THINKING


You seem to have grazed in the pasture of liberal zymology for quite awhile.
You might reTHINK that and THINK about why liberalism only constructs
SYMBOLS?
When the latest and greatest goes haywire? You're out only an ethereal
SYMBOL.
No biggie, just begin constructing the latest and greatest SYMBOL. No sweat
there.

Rich,

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

Rich wrote:
>
>> The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody)
>> from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal /
>> thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after
>> the bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is
>> though that although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else
>> knows that, so you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to
>> believe such legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists /
>> criminals etc) is a complete fallacy.
>
> where does common sense enter into the equation?
> want another common fallacy?
> Privacy is about protection of my privacy :)
> Privacy are mostly about blindfolding the 'cops'
>
> here is another nugget to THINK on
>
> follow the liberal line of reasoning, NOBODY DO ANYTHING and wait for
> your stuff to all go wrong while ..
> at the same time yammer why all the other guys stuff is going wrong and
> then make sure you are the first on your feet to demand an answer to
> "WHY DID'NT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING?"
>
>
>> Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect
>> us from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any
>> danger from terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it
>> was much "Easier" to go along with it than to think about it :)
>
> Speaking of armchair generals
> how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its immoral .. heh
> how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its illegal .. heh
> How about the Democrat 'leadership' in congress .. the ultimate
> definition of "ARMCHAIR"
>
>> In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it
>> makes their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply
>> complies...
>
> oh, reality based are we? Of course a government can protect you ..
> that's why there is a military ...
> centers for disease control .. air traffic control regs .. et al.
> What in your estimation would have been the outcome of WWII had there
> been no government?
>
> Sorry Charlie,
> looks as if the more you THINK about it, the sillier you become
> might want to stop pretending and start .... what? real THINKING
>
>
> You seem to have grazed in the pasture of liberal zymology for quite
> awhile.
> You might reTHINK that and THINK about why liberalism only constructs
> SYMBOLS?
> When the latest and greatest goes haywire? You're out only an ethereal
> SYMBOL.
> No biggie, just begin constructing the latest and greatest SYMBOL. No
> sweat there.
>
> Rich,
>
>


You have no concept of the word reality at all, you only think / pretend
you do. You probably need a break from Limbaugh, because you constantly
confuse the words "Liberal" and "Logical".

So tell me, how is your fuhrer Bush going to protect the nation from
earthquakes, or how about hurricanes, you still living in a trailer and
loving it obviously - or maybe the folks in New Orleans were a bit too
"Liberal" and deserved what they got eh?

The reality is that no Government or anybody else can guarantee your
safety, but they can pretty much guarantee your vote by fooling you into
thinking they can, and it obviously works on a great many people of
which you are an almost perfect example.

Typically you equate privacy with criminal activity, you stated so
clearly enough, you are typical of the idiots who believe they have
nothing to be concerned about when Governments become more and more
intrusive.

http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html

Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

> You have no concept of the word reality at all, you only think / pretend
> you do. You probably need a break from Limbaugh, because you constantly
> confuse the words "Liberal" and "Logical".

Well ... If you say so ...Sounds like you have a frim grasp on reality there
;)


> So tell me, how is your fuhrer Bush going to protect the nation from
> earthquakes, or how about hurricanes, you still living in a trailer and
> loving it obviously - or maybe the folks in New Orleans were a bit too
> "Liberal" and deserved what they got eh?

you've got a cornacopia overflowing with sterotypes there .. such bounty ;)

New Orleans got what the democrat state of Louisana gave them ...
The city of New Orleans got what the democrat city government prepared them
for ...
blaming the weather on your political foes is reaching for straws .. isn't
it?


> The reality is that no Government or anybody else can guarantee your
> safety, but they can pretty much guarantee your vote by fooling you into
> thinking they can, and it obviously works on a great many people of which
> you are an almost perfect example.

here comes reality again .. now why is it liberals try to remove any and
all vestiages of risk from 'society'?
with every more intrusive laws .. what are they trying to guarantee? .. then
why gun control?

and .. who? fooled you into thinking the way you do? ;)

You sure seem to know a lot about me how did you come by this ? .. heh ;)

> Typically you equate privacy with criminal activity, you stated so clearly
> enough, you are typical of the idiots who believe they have nothing to be
> concerned about when Governments become more and more intrusive.

heh .. if you say so .. oh brother ...
liberals intrude into our lives ... no smoking .. no guns .. more taxes ..
more government ... and to do what with?
make laws that do what? :)

you have a wonderful way of arguing in a circle and sneaking up on your self
and becoming your own worst enemy ;)

kinda neat, hard keepting track of all your fibs .. isn't it?


Rich