Government seeks to redefine privacy

Source: Associated press

WASHINGTON - A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy...

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_ot/terrorist_surveillance;_ylt=Ag3n8RRKhNSBU_iJvFKCs4Gs0NUE

---

I'm speechless.

If you're speechless, they are just going to have to listen in on you longer.

he has been on (like du for example) and read what he has posted.

from the op link:
"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."

now, i heard someone say lately that at&t own all the lines so even if you're with comcast or another company, they are renting the lines from at&t. and if that is true....well, we're totally busted!

blech.

Here's one:

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 act also says that, in such a scenario, even purely domestic calls made by someone as described above can also be eavesdropped, including other calls such a third party makes.

In other words, if anyone you've ever talked to has ever had a conversation with someone who has, themselves, ever made a call to someone who was affected, they're being listened to as well. In short, virtually everyone in the country can be listened to.

But the AP, in its usual fashion, puts lipstick on the pig.

...last summer. Also, can you please remind me/us if any of the law made all of this shit retroactively legal?

like the pissypants administration does 100% of the time?

They redefine torture and then claim "we don't torture." They redefine privacy and then reassure us that they protect our privacy. And you always have the fools so eager to catch the terrorists that they say, "well, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about."

POW = "enemy combatant"

Mercenary = "private contractor"

freedom fighter/revoluntionary = insurgent

illegal invasion = "preemptive strike" or "shock & awe"

:argh:

and yes, they modify definitions and our laws deliberately to conform with their guidelines. It is our rights and freedoms they compromise in the name of a war on terror and no war warrants the compromise of our rights or freedoms or the enemy has already won. This also redefines who the enemy actually is.

A belated welcome to DU :hi:

I like to think of how mid 20th century people would describe something.
The thought of taking a single con grunt at face value is laughable.
The lie is the Republicans standard from of discourse.

If their lips are moving.......................

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

official quoted is right "we the people" do need to change the definition of privacy. Get it back to what the Constitution implies privacy is and what we all expect the words private and anonymous to mean, not what some fascist or right-wing authoritarian thinks it should be.

Herr Josef K.? Please come with us...

we would appreciate it in the extreme if you would stop practicing fascism and restore our republic immediately.

That is all.

that "SUITS might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission."
I believe that a special prosecutor could be appointed to investigate this matter.
Am I right or wrong?

Just tying up all thse lose ends. Expect immunity. I'd bet my new bridge on it.

Or simply refuse to hand over any documents - again.

I watched part of the fatherland security hearings from last Friday and was absolutely shocked that not one question was asked about the abuses of the system that have been documented many times over. When dissenters names are put on that list for the purpose of intimidation and HS is not called out to explain the actions, we all lose.

democratic kenneth star like prosecutor, on the repukes tails.

Now, not so much.

Isn't distrust of the central government part and parcel of the whole right-wing leitmotif? It sure used to be. What has happened? Are the freepers REALLY that stupid? Is that even possible?

Suppose Hillary had presented the same arguments? DOes anyone doubt the whole right wing would be exploding all over the place right now?

It makes perfect sense for us to oppose this crap but are we the only ones with brains left in this country (except those whoring for the admin, of course)?

F***ING AMAZING.

Know exactly whom your enemy is.

monarchies and the drug industry and the CIA and organized religion and power brokers ...

in power, it's only the political opposition that will be spied upon. RWers ar SAFE from spying.

The whole thing about needing to spy on Americans to protect us from "terrorists" is utter BS. I'm starting to think there ARE no terrorists, only fascists setting up patsies to LOOK like terrorists.

in every RW takeover in history, the first to be eliminated are the ideologically suspect allies: just as Hitler consolidated power by taking out the SA, and Stalin eliminated the Trotskyites, the sign that we have irrevocably stepped over the edge will be when one faction of the coup eliminates another faction - that's when we need to worry about the camps going into full occupancy.

So, yes, the RW does need to worry - they may be in the wrong faction.

If the government were to say we want to know how many guns you have and where you keep them and what the serial numbers are, etc, that would get their attention.

Their heroes are Joe McCarthy, Francisco Franco, and General Pinochet. If you don't believe me, just go through back issues of National Review.

I'm convinced a very large sengment of the population really longs for a dictatorship. Not just marginalized crackpots, but solid, middle-class suburbanites. They want a society that is above all orderly and clean. They want the "lower classes" to know their place. They want dissidents, non-conformists, and other weirdos punished and locked up. They would be very happy with abolishing the criminal justice system and allows police to just shoot anyone that is thought to be a criminal.

Remember when that young American was facing caning as a punishment for writing graffiti in Singapore? And the Clinton administration initially thought that was a barbaric punishment and tried to stop the caning? And so many solid middle class Americans supported the caning? Never mind that the punishment was so severe because graffiti writing was considered a political crime in state controlled Singapore. Because in the RW view of America, all crimes are political crimes.

Nobody wants to admit it but yes, there is an iq issue along with their inflexible mentality.

that is so the pre 9/11 Republican mindset! See, if you weren't obviously mired in a pre 9/11 mindset, you wouldn't mind giving up your liberty for a little safety. Republicans understand this!:eyes: :puke:

What they don't understand is that there is nothing new under the sun and just a little paying attention to history would go a long way toward an avoidance of same crap, different day. But, unfortunately, Republicans aren't all that fond of that "intellectual" shit.

Source: ap




Definition changing for people's privacy

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 8 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.


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

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

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_ot/terrorist_surveillance;_ylt=AiFCvb3MT043wCG7SUSSQ2us0NUE

---

so, we are now to all trust the gov and big businesses?-guess it is happening as I write anyway.

Flatulating dodo. (Now that thought is no longer private).

And the track record for the government and big business wrt protecting individual privacy? But we should trust them, because?

Thanks guys, we'll be next in Europe. Can you pretty please start a revolution already?

--IMM

We're gonna have to resort to such methods of communication soon here.

Thanks for the reminder.

-Hoot

Costner took a great novel by David Brin and trashed it.

And while we are on the topic of David Brin, everyone here should read his book "The Transparent Society". It is nonfiction, and it addresses this EXACT issue. (Surveillance and anonymity)

http://www.davidbrin.com/transparent.html

"The Security community, culminating in Attorney General John Ashcroft, must recognize that we will not give them sweeping new powers of vision without demanding compensating powers of accountability and supervision. I have no objection to our guard dog seeing better -- providing common citizens get a better choke chain, to remind the creature he's a dog, not a wolf."

That's it. It works both ways or no way.

Any government (or person) who doesn't accept that deal is not to be given the trust they are demanding.

Thanks for lifting and adding it to this discussion.

Well, it sure seems like it's getting smaller as it's swallowed up by the oceans.

if the goverment is eavesdropping on my calls and snooping through my e-mails?

This should be unconstitutional and thrown out of court by any honest judge, if we have one left after the Bush administration finishes stacking the courts.

and that is exactly the point

n/t

"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." -snip-

Wasn't there a story recently that stated all telephone communications within the U.S. were being re-routed overseas and then back again so the government could get around this little stipulation or something rather? Anyway .... tell me again why I should trust this government with dammit anything they do or say?

Yea right ....... just trust us ....... right .......

to trust the government.

Remember they modeled the Constitution after Rosseaus social contract which in turn was modeled after John Locks treaties. Those documents stated outright that no government or person in power can be trusted. All will eventually be corrupted and acting for their personal gain. And, the people need safe guards against the people in power taking over, and not being in their position only to carry out the will of the people. They specifically said elected officials would do this.

This instance is a prime example and why the supreme court should do it's job to overule those constitutional and bill of rights infringements since Congress has already failed(been corrupted).

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A top intelligence official says it is time 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 safeguards people's private communications and financial information.

...

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 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.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_ot/terrorist_surveillance

---

Isn't it nice how government and business have our best interests in mind?


My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

quote: "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 safeguards people's private communications and financial information."

No Donald Kerr - assha. Instead, it should mean that the PEOPLE's private communications and financial information are safeguarded FROM the interests of government and businesses

Cuz it's all being 'privatized' and you know who gets rewarded - their base. They keep it in the 25% - now down from the max of 37%.

and the fascist Republican Party.

information..."

Excuse me, ladies of Henhouse 41? I'd like to introduce you to Mr Fox - he's been charged with properly safeguarding you...

The Court gave its interpretation of privacy and enhanced the 4th Amendment. People are supposed to change their interpretation just because this guy said so? Forget it!

:grr:

can't afford it anymore. And my book, the Constitution, has been stolen.

our right to privacy.

important thing that we can do immediately. Great point and we need it now more than ever.

Up thread vpilot made a great comment and in it mention the implied" right in the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is only implied, if that. The concept of privacy was fairly recent ( well, relative to the writing of the Constitution), and it isn't in the Constitution, though it is implied that it is. Roe v. Wade was, I believe grounded in the right to privacy, and get rid of privacy and it probably goes to.

The corporatists and fascists really are attacking the implied right to privacy, and, finally, that is what they are trying to get rid of.

Rights are constructions and they only exist when we bring them into being by asserting their existence and then codify their existence through law.

But do you REALLY TRUST this Congress to do it right?I don't...if the Democratic side could grow some backbone,and do the right thing,then yes.But I really have zero confidence in them.Can you imagine the lobbying that would be going on?The media and the intelligence communities would have a fieldday writing the amendment.

I just don't recognize this place anymore.

What we're willing to give up? How about ZIP!?!?!

Here's the main point and the reason why we don't want to give the government squat:



- Exactly.

K&R!!!

I'm damned well going to speak for, act for, fund, and vote for, people who campaign on constitutional protections.

And, in fact, there should be some movement to propose a constitutional amendment. If the Right can demand stupid constitutional amendments to 'defend marriage," we the people certainly have a right to demand an amendment to protect our privacy.

Every single thought you transmit electronically is able to be traced back to you. Add video surveillance everywhere and the total loss of privacy is already a fait accompli.

Did you know that car rental companies can track your speed with GPS receivers and hand you your tickets when you return the car?

There's no going back.

looks like. Really. He sounds like a man who undervalues his privacy. His undergrad degree was from Cornell in 1963 in Electrical Engineeerong. . .

They already know everything about you. Everytime you fill out a form, everytime you use your creditcard, everytime you rent a car, check in a hotel etc. etc. They know. They just want to do far more with what they know.

or more precisely you are waiving anonymity and in some cases confidentiality.

We do not currently waive the right to privacy in content of telephone calls, letters, emails, etc. except when we are dealing with companies and have waived that right.

What eavesdropping does is lift the veil from all anonymous content in communication. What's left is the determination of how much the average person can expect in terms of confidentiality.

go fuck yourselves.

You've got to ask why these people want to redefine it in the first place and we'll see their true goals.

On an aside, I hope a whole load of midwestern conservatives just felt their ears burn. Hehe.

DUers and lefties, Naomi Wolf's "The End of America, Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot". Chapter 5 deals with Surveil Ordinary Citizens.

In this book Naomi Wolf defines the ten steps that take a country from democracy to fascism and totalitarianism. She compares what has been happening here in the USA for the last twenty years that is coming to fruition under the Bush administration, to some of the worst fascist and totalitarian nations in the past century, Germany, Russia, China, Chile and various other examples throughout the world.

If everyone in America read this book, you would see them taking to the streets to stop this Saudi and UAE backed oil cartel that is ruining our democracy.

And, yeah. Our greatest threat comes from within, not from without. And it's wearing a badge of office.

... "next up, 'freedom' is it an anachronism?"

Or government will redefine us.

Just like patriotism means insuring those corps make a profit.

Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength,
War is Peace.

Koans for everyone. The definition for definition is...

Circular logic by a bunch of squares will always reshape one's thinking.

I accuse all intelligence, administration,and government officials who attempt to frighten US out of our rights of being enemy combatants and terrorists. They, by word and by deed are attempting to subvert the constitution of the United States government and foster a general feeling of panic and terror among the communities of this country. This is by definition the work of a terrorist and those doing this work must see the evil in their deeds, confess, and stop. If said people are working with others, either in small private groups or in large public ones they should be aware that conspiracy to commit terror is also a crime. Should it be shown that at anytime any official did at anytime use the threat of terror, even without the actual act of terror, in order to further a political agenda they were committing terrorism.

Perhaps, we do not need to re-define privacy. Perhaps we need to re-define terrorist and to look closer to home for the real terrorists. The people who really know how to drive political change through the use and manipulation of terror, and this is the important part, even if they themselves do not intend to cause any physical harm.

The terror users among us do not hide their identity. They hide in plain sight among us every day. Holding press conferences. Putting poison in our children's toys for a larger profit margin, Making record oil profits as both the threat of nuclear war and global warming choke the physical and psychological climate. They have been riding high on the drug of terror.

Please don't get me wrong. The people who actually do throw the bombs and flew those planes were and are terrorists in every sense of the word.

But a new definition must now be added. A new more subtle, yet more extraordinary force of terror. The post terror "terrorists leeches."

The blood sucking, life draining parasites that thrive in the atmosphere of terror. They have stepped over the line from merely basking in the odious afterglow of terror to actually stoking the flames for just "a little while longer" to Capitalize on Terror.

Seems like it's 1983...

This isn't about 'right' and 'left' anymore. This isn't about party affiliation, it is about what it means to be American. As soon as everyone unites on these crucial Constitutional issues we can get our country back. We have got to appeal to rural and urban, all races, lifestyles, and religions to say no to fascism---this is a serious crucial time we live in, and we had better do it right. This must be our mission.
Just my opinion, keep our eyes on the prize, our civil rights, nothing else will matter once we have lost our collective voices, who cares what we call ourselves, other than Americans.
Excuse my strong language, It is so upsetting to read articles like this one!!

They think they have every right to invade our privacy.

I thought Cheneybush ALWAYS defined privacy that way.

What they are really doing is trying to define privacy as anonymity, and that's not what privacy.

Privacy is the right to keep another person/group/organization from gathering and/or using information about an individual's life to further their own goals.

This is more insidious because these bastards are once again beating us in their ability to frame a debate.

It looks more and more like the old Sovjets in US today... They too redefined all the words, and in the end spy on EVERYONE...

US the land of the free.... I guess not anymore.. If you dont stop it NOW!!

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

"Some freedoms should be limited" Words of wisdom from Bush himself. He's here to protcet us from the bad guys. That's all people. Nothing to see here. Just go back to sleep. We'll wake ya when we need ya to bomb Iran.

The powers that be have the mega horn and the wealth to attack the messengers, what they don't have are the facts or truth to attack the message and that's what they're afraid of.

Edit for P.S. George Will just wrote an asinine column blaming the Internet for the Bush administration trusting Curveball on WMDs in Iraq.


Thanks for the thread, kellenburger

Kicked and recommended.

This administration.Can we all just agree to redefine "President" as Dictator,and get it over with?

attacked by Hugh Hewitt and others on Salem Broadcasting Network.

When I heard this new talking point this week - - - that "anonymous blogging" needed to come to an end, I thought it somewhat strange that this particular issue should suddenly become one of the right wing radio key issues.

I guess the word must have come down from the linguistics gurus - Frank Luntz, et al (who banbished the term "private accounts" in favor of "personal accounts" and who famously instructed Republicans "No mention of Iraq should ever be made without mentioning 9/11") that a major attack on internet posting and free speech was imminent, but that it should be framed as bringing those shady "anonymous bloggers" to justice.

What are the odds that the "Federalist Society" lawyers (the guys who brought us the unrestrained and unchecked UNITARY EXECUTIVE theory, and have the gall to call themselves "strict constructionists") are up to their necks in this attack on internet freedom.

Too bad the folks at the Federalist Society don't seem to see the significance of the fact that when Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, and published them in the New York newspapersduring the brawling debate about ratfication of the Constitution, they felt the need to publish them under the pseudonym "Publius".





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


Something tells me we are about to hear the term "anonymous blogger" castigated on a regular basis by Rush, Sean, Bill O, Hugh, et al.

The word must be out.

And the Propaganda Machine will be in motion to re-frame the issues in anticipation of an assault on internet free speech, independent journalism, and an attempt to impose silence via fear.

In principle a Party member had no spare time, and was never alone except in bed. It was assumed that when he was not working, eating, or sleeping he would be taking part in some kind of communal recreation: to do anything that suggested a taste for solitude, even to go for a walk by yourself, was always slightly dangerous. There was a word for it in Newspeak: ownlife, it was called, meaning individualism and eccentricity.

- George Orwell, 1984

I've never been under any illusion that "you" don't already know who I am. And everyone I know already knows about my complete and utter abhorrence of you and everything you stand for.

I'd like to deport people like that to Burma with 10 bucks and a used suit.
I've never regarded a telephone line much less the radio signal emitted by a cell as secure.
OFC when I had a good job I did a lot of telecom work. The lines have always been easily tapped.
But this crap is going too far.
When the permanently install a tap on my phone because they might want it some day, they've tapped my phone.
Its like searching my pad on the grounds they might some day get a warrant.
Ridiculous and unacceptable.

"2007, is that you? You're 23 years late in calling, but perhaps the signal was just delayed so long from all the wiretapping. Shit happens. Better late than never, right?"

Orwell, you were a genius, or some kind of time traveler...

to my first-year college students today. These are intelligent( if factually ignorant), moderate dem-kind of kids ( which means that they are really Rockefeller Republicans). They all thought that the right to privacy was already in the Constitution.

When I explained that - nope, no privacy, not there, nada, zilch, zip and implied is only that, implied - well, a few said, "well, if I'm not doing anything wrong, what have I got to be worried about."

Most of them also thought that the right to an abortion was also in there. A bunch also thought the ERA was in it. Oh, I teach writing and we are doing a unit on language.

The whole thing was like that weird Saturday Night Live sketch "Common Knowledge" with Steve Martin:

Les Shermire: Let's go to Literature.
Bob: Okay. Author of A Christmas Carol.
Les Shermire: Ebenezer Scrooge.
Bob: Correct. Literature for 300, Author of Huckleberry Finn.
Les Shermire: Tom Sawyer.
Bob: No, sorry, the answer is Ernest Hemingway. And now let's take a minute to explain the rules of Common Knowledge. Questions for our show are selected by educators from Princeton University to reflect the broad range of common knowledge that every American should posess. Answers for Common Knowledge are determined by a nation wide survey of 17 year old high school seniors.

You have to love No Child Left a Mind.

Would rec if it weren't too late.

Everything will be OK in their twisted views.

*sigh*

Top American citizens say it's time for this Corporate-run Government to mind its own fucking business and just do the job we pay them for instead of engaging in the repression of American citizens.

Personally, I'm far less worried about foreign terrorists than I am about the fascist terrorists that have taken over my government.

2009 will mark the beginning of the end of corporate interference in our government.

All you creeps that want to spy on innocent Americans will have to get out of our bedrooms and find a real job.