Government Spying
This is an extremely long but thoughtful post-turned-debate about the government’s ability to, essentially, do whatever the hell they want. Please keep an open mind and read on.
Me:
Michael O sent me this link to an article about a guy who was being watched by Homeland Security as he paid $6500 off on his credit card. The guy was told that “the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn’t move until the threat alert is lifted.” That seems pretty ridiculous. Just because they have the means doesn’t give them the right. I don’t understand how paying your own personal credit card off could pose a security threat. However, I don’t feel that the real issue is invasion of privacy; I believe the underlying problem is the government is wasting our time and money on stupid shit. As Michael said, “I think our government forgets one very important quote - ‘those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free.’”
I think some of the critics of the government’s recent policies are simply uneducated whiners. That’s not to say that I know the truth and all the ins and outs - I certainly don’t, not by a long shot - but I don’t generally complain just to complain like some of the commenters on that article. I agree that the government spying on those who make large payments to a credit card bill is very strange, but who cares? Does it really matter, in terms of privacy? As long as you’re not doing something illegal then what do you have to worry about? Honestly, I’d rather have a government who cares about its citizens and their safety too much than one who doesn’t care enough; however, I don’t think the government is necessarily caring in all the right ways - social welfare in particular, like Social Security, MediCare, and Child Services - which is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
I am not generally in favor of privacy invasion but, like it or not, that’s the direction our country is moving in. The better technology becomes, the less our privacy remains private. Spying is nothing new and, in my opinion, is not necessarily cause for alarm - at least not yet. As I said, I am not in favor of government spying but honestly I am apathetic to our current situation. My main issue is that there are more important problems that we as a nation need to address that get swept under the rug in favor of our need for “temporal safety.” Your thoughts?
And thus was the can of worms opened… Well, you’ve certainly struck a chord with me here, Dean. As for your “if you have nothing to hide, why worry” argument, it is because I have nothing to hide that I worry. I’ve done nothing to give cause to have my privacy invaded and my right to privacy violated; therefore any threat to do so on my government’s behalf is both insulting and frightening.
And let’s not go thinking that Bush & Co. are all that concerned with our welfare. I mean, they did, after all, hand the security of our ports over to a firm owned by one of the few governments to not only fully endorse the Taliban regime, but also help launder and divert money on Al Qaida’s behalf. Here’s a thought: Instead of investigating people who are just trying to pay off a credit card, why not review the decisions they’re making in regards to policing one of the major avenues into our country.
Also, as for government eavesdropping, once you sit back and say, “I’ve got nothing to hide, so have at it,” you’re just opening a door that will be difficult, perhaps even impossible to close. Does that mean they can pull my medical records? Or maybe put me under routine surveillance without having to seek legal permission to do so?
I’ve gotta say that I’m surprised at your ambivalence to this issue, and it is, in my opinion, that very ambivalence that will allow regimes like that of Bush to continue to push this type of agenda. Oh, sure, I might not have anything to hide, but my right to privacy is a luxury that I enjoy; a luxury that I am afforded by the fact that I live in this Land of the Free. And while I may not be a target of Bush & Co., the very thought that I would be helpless against them if I were terrifies me. And who needs terrorists when our own government threatens liberty and undermines the very values upon which this country was founded.
/end rant
Me:
I agree that everyone should have the right to maintain privacy but I guess it’s just the apathy in me saying “I have nothing to hide.” Honestly, if Communism could work as it was designed - not Communistic Dictatorship but true Communism - then I think the world would be a better place for following it. Of course, that won’t happen.
So maybe I need someone to tell me: why SHOULD I care? Why SHOULD I want or need to keep private, for example, my medical records? It is my opinion that we’re all owned by the government anyway, and no I’m not giving up the fight, I’m just acknowledging the truth. People do not make laws; people elect lawmakers to make them. Who said the people had to elect lawmakers? Lawmakers. It’s a cycle that can only be broken with a new system of government, which will probably never happen. The draft, though a different issue altogether, is another example of how the government owns us. Taxes. Jail. Schools. These are institutions. If we don’t follow these institutions then, eventually, you either go to jail or run off to another country.
Sorry, I got off track. I don’t think Bush & Co are on the right track and I apologize if I sounded like I was going Republican for a minute there. I believe there are larger, or at least different, issues that we should be paying attention to. If someone can explain WHY I should care then maybe I would feel differently.
PS - I wasn’t trying to sound like the government never does anything good, because they do, I just don’t think it’s always enough.
Well, I know for a fact that you can’t stand spyware, right? But why? I mean, it’s not like you have anything to hide in your browsing habits, right? If you’re willing to let the government look over your shoulder in your day-to-day life, why not let a marketing firm track your activities on the internet?
Eriq:
You know what I say? Repeal money. You don’t think so? Why is money so great? It’s paper and metal. Paper that could be used in the form of wood to build houses. Metal that could be used to build offices to house jobs for people here that we’re instead sending overseas. You know what they do with old money? They burn it. You know what they do with old coins? They melt them. Let’s move to nuclear power, repeal money, bring back the band Nelson, melt down George W. Bush, bring back Arrested Development, and elect Silent Bob as president. What good is money? To horde and spend on ridiculous cars that cost a staggering amount of money made from melted down old money with wood trim from trees that would have been used to make more money? To spend on steaming rocks on Cornell? To spend on keeping our troops in a warzone that we created trying to force a country not part of our union to submit to controlling themselves when they never had an inclination to do so? To search for “weapons of mass destruction” that actually turned out to be CD player made from some chickenwire and sh*t. Mofo’s like MacGuyver..no, mofo’s *BETTER* than MacGuyver — knock it off!
I say we just flush the whole economy down the toilet. We all know California’s due to just drop off into the sea anyway, and then we’ll have our Arizona Bay and we’ll all have to Learn to Swim.
Snoochie Boochies.
Dre, show me where the word privacy is ANYWHERE in the Constitution or the Bill of rights. That’s right. It is not there. We are not afforded privacy by living in the Land of Free. We are how ever afforded the right “to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. Well, who the hell gets to consider what is “reasonable”. The judges do. If the judges feel that the PATRIOT ACT is unreasonable than it would be a violation of our civil liberties. I personally do no think it is unreasonable for our government to look at large payoffs or purchases, so long as it does not interfere with my personal life.
Remember, that Bush did not pass this bill, Congress did. While he does endorse it, he isn’t to blame for it being passed. It is the people we elect to represent us that are to blame. Who has taken the time to write our Senators and Representatives to let them know we don’t want this bill? Have you? Until a person takes the time to make an attempt to reach the parties that passed this bill, I don’t think (imo) there is room to complain.
… about Spyware, it does more than track your activities. it also takes up memory.
Me:
Dré - I see what you mean. Still, the government is more important and more unstoppable than spyware. If I had to use a spyware program to access the internet then I could either find another way to connect to the net or stop using the net altogether; I can’t just stop using the government. I should clarify - I would PREFER that the government keep out of my business if for no reason than I think they should be using their resources elsewhere. However, that’s not my call.
Eriq - Communism, brutha. That’s what I’m talkin’ aboot.
Kristian - “I personally do no think it is unreasonable for our government to look at large payoffs or purchases, so long as it does not interfere with my personal life.” That’s biggoted, but I understand and pretty much agree with everything else you’re saying there. The Patriot Act has been subject to much criticism but has so far been proven to NOT be unconstitutional. I don’t know enough about it either way, but that’s what I’ve heard.
“We are how ever afforded the right ‘to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’.”
Funny, that sounds a lot like privacy, Kristian. Also, I never mentioned the Constitution or Bill of Rights, so there’s no need to attempt to refute points I never made. However, there are plenty of laws on the books that protect me, as a citizen, from invasive government. As for Congress passing this, plenty of Democrats have said that when they passed the Patriot Act, they did not do so with the intention of unwarranted spying (that’s right, I called it what it is). That was Bush’s own personal interpretation. So, I don’t think me writing him to share my feelings on the subject are really gonna make a difference. I mean, he ignored the FISA Act when he signed the order for this little pet project. If the man can’t obey the law, I can hardly expect him to obey his constiuents.
…about domestic spying, it does more than threaten my privacy. it also takes up my valuable time by forcing me to have these long-winded debates.
The Patriot Act does not authorize our President, nor any government agency, to spy on American citizen without pursuing a warrant or court order. You got a warrant? Have at it.
Me:
Dré, I completely agree with your last two statements. I was originally just trying to say
1) the government’s gonna do whatever they want and there’s really not a whole lot we can do about it - regardless of what the law says, they will do whatever they want because they are the man;
2) I wish our government were focusing on things that are, IMO, more important such as social welfare.
“I’ve done nothing to give cause to have my privacy invaded and my right to privacy violated; therefore any threat to do so on my government’s behalf is both insulting and frightening.”
I was simply implying you have no “right to privacy”. You have a right to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.
You don’t need to write Bush about the PATRIOT ACT. You need to write the Senators and Congress men and women who passed this law. I don’t buy the excuse that “that when they passed the Patriot Act, they did not do so with the intention of unwarranted spying”. They knew damn well what they were passing. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. What is there excuse now that they RENEWED the exact same bill?
Me:
Is the Patriot Act really supposed to be in all caps? “PATRIOT ACT”?
Sorry. It should be USA PATRIOT Act. USA PATRIOT is an acronym and it is used in all caps in all my legal books.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
Eriq:
Silly The Undertaking Put Into Diverting our attention from the fact that they probably spent a good million dollars developing a commitee to create an acronym for this act, now isn’t it? How’s that for an acronym.
Me:
The STUPID Act - genius!
I repeat, the spying on of American citizens by government agencies without a warrant has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act wasn’t designed to grant the executive branch authority above the law. Last I checked, the FISA Act was still in place to prevent the government from being able to eavesdrop on its people on a whim. Bush did that of his own initiative. Did Congress pass the Patriot Act? Yes. I’ve never denied that. Did they do so knowing that the President would be allowing the NSA to listen in on the lives of American citizens without first following due process? Hell no.
And I’m sorry, but the thought of the executive branch being able to listen in on my phone conversations or monitor my finances without first pleading their case to the judiciary does not make me feel “secure in [my] person”. My right to prevent unlawful searches and seizures constitutes a right to privacy, Kristian, whether you want to admit it or not, otherwise government agencies could bash down my door at a moment’s notice without cause or justification.
Among the laws the PATRIOT Act amended are immigration laws and banking and money laundering laws. It also amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). - Wikipedia
So FISA has been amended. The USA PATRIOT Act DOES allow the executive branch to perform domestic spying. The judicial branch has not found this to be an unreasonable search or seizure. I am sure that if it were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have found it so and made the law a civil rights violation and voided it. They have done nothing of the sort.
We have discussed this in IM. The Patriot Act amended the language in the FISA Act, but it never voided the need to obtain a warrant for (or produce one within 72 hours of) conducting surveillance upon a U.S. citizen.
Eriq:
And by the way, what’s with the “skipping words” in your acronym because they don’t fit in the way you wanted to spell it? “Uniting AND Strengthening..”? Some million bucks we spent on that. It’s for the birds.
> Did they do so knowing that the President would be allowing the NSA to listen in on the lives of American citizens without first following due process? Hell no.
And I’m sorry, but the thought of the executive branch being able to listen in on my phone conversations or monitor my finances without first pleading their case to the judiciary does not make me feel “secure in [my] person”.
I just thought I would post my quick .02 here. The government has the ability to wiretap and gather Intel on anyone in the states and get retro-active judicial approval on the wiretap. So honestly it was just a formality anyway. One thing that is important to remember is this (And I know I am hitting this topic way late)
But as our technology advances these wiretaps/Intel gathering are going to become more prevalent and easy to pull off with little or no knowledge of the people that they are being eavesdropped upon. A little bit of tech to give you an idea, is this. I just saw an article in Scientific American about a company that is creating little wireless cameras with their own IP address you can pull up and monitor, it broadcasts the video stream for like a mile or so, and it is about the size of a penny. In fact the cameras are disposable and come on a little roll like stickers, with one adhesive side that you can simply stick anywhere and watch the action.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
