Definition changing for people's privacy

Definition changing for people's privacy

This is a discussion on Definition changing for people's privacy within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Definition changing for people's privacy

  1. #1
    Member Array airbornerangerboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Definition changing for people's privacy

    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.

    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.

    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.

    The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies.

    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.
    Read this interesting tidbit in the news today, Big Brother is starting to walk on 2 legs now, seems that the government is going to protect me whether I want it or not. How do you'all feel?
    “Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.” James Dean
    Phil (NRA Member and Vietnam Vet)
    ------------- My CCW ----------------
    No Guns Here Boss
    I gave them to the naked Pigmy's in New Guinea

  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Slidell, LA
    Great.. So, to get around privacy laws, all you have to do is redefine privacy! It just means "safe-guards" on all your govt-archived "private" information. What about "safe-guarding" my info from the govt itself? I guess we don't need that.

    Sure, you can trust the govt. Just ask the indians!
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Supertac45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Michigan's U.P.
    There hasn't been much privacy in a long time. The computer opens way too many doors to what you do, and how you think, if you communicate with it. Even if you don't, you can still find out a lot of information on people for free.
    Les Baer 45
    Sig Man
    N.R.A. Patron Life Member

  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #4
    NDS is offline
    Member Array NDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Privacy is truly a thing of the past. That doesn't mean we should acquiesce to intrusions into our business. Rather than redefine a term in order to circumvent its accepted meaning, the government should be seeking ways to enhance its observance of our privacy. A redefinition is in order, but it is the role of government in the lives of the citizens that needs to be further limited. It would be nice if the SCOTUS were to rediscover the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and reimpose those limitations on our government.

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    The single most major contribution to the loss of privacy is not (perhaps) illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping. It is data collection and data sales, distribution, by the private sector. This should be brought under much tighter control.

    The second most important contribution to lost privacy is the gradual movement toward use of driver's licenses for identification.

    For the younger folks here, it really wasn't that long ago that a driver's license was a piece of paper with your name, height, weight, eye color, and address. It was good for only one thing, driving.

    Now, it has been transformed (improperly in my opinion) into a national identity card. Worse, without a single act of Congress, it has become impossible to travel without this "internal passport." You can't get on a plane, a bus, a train, without it.

    This is a hideous development. I recall vividly reading about all the totalitarian governments in which the phrase "paper's please," was the start of an unpleansant journey. The boat needs to be rowed backward to where it was before circa 1992. We shouldn't need a national id card to make a domestic flight. And we sure as heck don't need watch lists that routinely "catch" babies, elderly white women, Congressmen---well, maaybe we should keep the Congressmen off the plane and in Washington.

  7. #6
    Member Array joffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Uh huh, this is like saying 'the right to keep and bear arms' means the right to keep and bear government-issued arms, and at their discretion.

    Anyone remember Rudy Giuliani's definition of freedom?

    "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
    War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Here's MY definition of privacy: NDBBM

    Nobody's Damn Business But MINE!

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Similar Threads

  1. Your employer,your privacy and your CHL
    By poppy37 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: March 18th, 2011, 11:15 PM
  2. Oregon to uphold CCW privacy
    By IVron in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 28th, 2009, 07:37 AM
  3. ACLU's Definition of "The People"
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: April 4th, 2008, 09:30 AM
  4. Privacy vs. the Right to Know
    By Bumper in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 07:01 PM
  5. Watch CNN now VA CHP privacy issue
    By kf4uel in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 09:29 AM

Search tags for this page

definition of privacy

Click on a term to search for related topics.