Unwarranted Wiretapping?

[Jenner]

The best thing about our constitution.
Is that it's made of paper.
which means it's absorbent, so it can soak up all the urine when it's pissed all over.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

i definitely understand anger at wiretapping, but i'm not bothered too much by it. i don't incriminate myself over the phone.

doesn't the government kind of need to be sneaky to keep secrets and do their secret agent stuff? is EVERYONE bothered on principality or are people worried and embarrassed that some man with headphones on might be listening to their dirty phone calls back home to their special someones?

[Kizyr]

doesn't the government kind of need to be sneaky to keep secrets and do their secret agent stuff? is EVERYONE bothered on principality or are people worried and embarrassed that some man with headphones on might be listening to their dirty phone calls back home to their special someones?

No, and yes.

Most folks don't have anything to be worried about, because being in the majority (regarding race, religion, and--to some extent--political opinion) doesn't warrant any suspicion or concern about being spied on, absent probable cause.

People should be upset on principle, however, because the laws of this country are supposed to be designed for protection of minorities. Even if you aren't personally at risk, that doesn't affect what's right and what's wrong, or where the government has and has not overstepped its bounds. KF

[meg]

angered on principle--so far as wiretapping goes.

angered because they're screwing us over, so far as everything else goes.

[Werefrog]

Well... technically this isn't pissing on the constitution as there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution. However, in my opinion, it's pissing all over the principles of our country. Granted, BG, you are correct in saying that I have nothing really to worry about. The simple idea of what could happen is what terrifies me. I know the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but it's really hard not to think that this could potentially be the start of a 1984-esque Big Brother.

I've always thought that Big Brother was a concept that could never really happen due to the simple fact that it would take too many people to listen to the conversation. But with advances in technological interfaces and A.I. (self-sorting "suspicious" activities) who knows what the future holds?

Also, there's the point that Kizyr made that this is an example of our government failing to live up to the American ideal. Anyway.... we'll just have to see what happens.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

i get the principality of it all. i also understand "give an inch and they'll take a mile", but with sensitive information and LIVES hanging in the balance depending on who knows and discovers what, i'd think sneakiness would be necessary or at least quite helpful.

i'm not black and white with the whole "give me liberty or give me death" thing. on THIS particular issue, i don't mind. i'd rather choose being safer over someone hearing me discuss my boring life and the events in it.

[meg]

well, yes. i personally don't give a damn WHO listens in. to ME. there's nothing in my life you could blackmail me or anyone else with.

but when i went to the spy museum in DC i was struck by how many historical spies were forced into it because a government knew something that could ruin their lives.

if i thought our government could be trusted with sensitive information, i wouldn't care. they could know all they wanted. but considering their history of information abuse from just the recent few years, no. they have been willfully blind and corrupt. i have read NOTHING in the news that gives me faith in our leaders.

[phyco126]

i'm not black and white with the whole "give me liberty or give me death" thing. on THIS particular issue, i don't mind. i'd rather choose being safer over someone hearing me discuss my boring life and the events in it.

How does that quote go, "Those who sacrifice freedom for a little security deserve neither security or freedom" something to those lines, I love it really.

And sure, there is no amendment stating that we have a right to privacy, but there are other amendments that are supposed to protect us from wiretappings and crap.

[Kizyr]

i get the principality of it all. i also understand "give an inch and they'll take a mile", but with sensitive information and LIVES hanging in the balance depending on who knows and discovers what, i'd think sneakiness would be necessary or at least quite helpful.

i'm not black and white with the whole "give me liberty or give me death" thing. on THIS particular issue, i don't mind. i'd rather choose being safer over someone hearing me discuss my boring life and the events in it.

That's the problem. The government is very inept when it comes to sensitive information. Lives are not hanging in the balance with most of the crap that goes on.

The 'security measures' that get put into place that are questionable are a complete crock. The no-fly list is a perfect example, as is racial profiling at airports. Both of them offer a great illusion of safety, even though both are completely ineffective policies.

The choice isn't between safety and liberty. The choice is between the illusion of safety for the majority/white people, and the civil liberties of minorities.

Well... technically this isn't pissing on the constitution as there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution. However, in my opinion, it's pissing all over the principles of our country.

The right to privacy is mostly from the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the 4th Amendment. So, yes, it is part of the US Constitution. KF

[Werefrog]

And sure, there is no amendment stating that we have a right to privacy, but there are other amendments that are supposed to protect us from wiretappings and crap.

Well, yeah, that's your interpretation (it's also mine, BTW), but that's all it is, an interpretation. Hopefully, judges continue to agree with you.

[Kizyr]

And sure, there is no amendment stating that we have a right to privacy, but there are other amendments that are supposed to protect us from wiretappings and crap.

Well, yeah, that's your interpretation (it's also mine, BTW), but that's all it is, an interpretation. Hopefully, judges continue to agree with you.

Again, 4th Amendment. KF

[Werefrog]

Well, yeah, the 4th amendment covers it IF you view a phone conversation that you have the same way you would view one that was held in person between two people behind closed doors. But it could be argued that a phone conversation leaves the private sphere and enters the public sphere.

My point is that just because something has been interpreted in a way for a long time doesn't mean that it can't change. The actual words of the fourth amendment contain no information on how to deal with this. However, we can the look at the intent of the amendment to see that it was meant to protect us from this type of thing. However, there are literalists out there who would believe that this case would not violate the 4th amendment. It's not a huge leap to make to connect this to the 4th amendment, but there are some literalists that would refuse to make this leap. And the way our courts are set up, five literalists who believed this way could change it.

Edit: This is my last time arguing technicalities. I'd like to think this is an important technicality for understanding how our courts work and how our Constitution's flexibility is important since there was so much the founding fathers couldn't foresee. However, it's just a technicality; let's turn back to social implications.

What's everyone's opinion on online privacy? Should the FBI be able to trace back IP Addresses on a websites if it has illegal content? If so, to what extent is this acceptable.

[Kizyr]

Edit: This is my last time arguing technicalities. I'd like to think this is an important technicality for understanding how our courts work and how our Constitution's flexibility is important since there was so much the founding fathers couldn't foresee. However, it's just a technicality; let's turn back to social implications.

No, no, I think you bring up a pretty significant point. Namely, that it's at least possible for a literalist to argue along those lines. I think, at this point, most of the Justices agree that a phone conversation is still private, which is why a lot of Bush's measures have been shot down constitutionally thus far.

You really have to be trying to interpret it a certain way to get that meaning. In general, though, I've found at least the Supreme Court to be the most reliable of the three branches of government. KF

[DezoPenguin]

Well, more reliable than the Presidency and Congress, yes, but still, the Supreme Court is as highly politicized as any other branch of government. With the Court's current makeup, many cases that come before it have nothing to do with the law, but a simple vote: the right-wing judges vote righty and the left-wing judges vote lefty. Frankly, any 5-4 Supreme Court decision is utterly worthless as legal precedent from a "What does our Constitution say?" standpoint (obviously, as long as the same nine justices are sitting, its real-world impact continues) since it's clearly a political decision based on personal beliefs, not legal reasoning. If a case comes down 7-2, I feel a lot more comfortable about it being valuable as an example of actual legal reasoning rather than the political beliefs of the sitting justices.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

i'm not black and white with the whole "give me liberty or give me death" thing. on THIS particular issue, i don't mind. i'd rather choose being safer over someone hearing me discuss my boring life and the events in it.

How does that quote go, "Those who sacrifice freedom for a little security deserve neither security or freedom" something to those lines, I love it really.

yeah, people say a lot of BS. ESPECIALLY while quoting. my theory is that they assume that ,since it's a quote, the thinking has been done FOR them.

now how can someone rightfully decide what someone else deserves?

[phyco126]

WOW! Calling a quote from one of the FOUNDING FATHERS of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BS is pretty funny.

[Sonic#]

i get the principality of it all. i also understand "give an inch and they'll take a mile", but with sensitive information and LIVES hanging in the balance depending on who knows and discovers what, i'd think sneakiness would be necessary or at least quite helpful.

i'm not black and white with the whole "give me liberty or give me death" thing. on THIS particular issue, i don't mind. i'd rather choose being safer over someone hearing me discuss my boring life and the events in it.

For me, I cannot trust a large structure such as a government to properly handle its wiretapping, whether or not it is trustworthy, untrustworthy, or some combination of the two. Whether or not the power is being misused, the hypothetical remains. It could be misused, to very grave effect. And wehn racial profiling is going on, with the assumption that a person of a certain nationality or ethnicity is more likely to be a lawbreaker than otherwise, it is being misused, even if I am not perceptibly inconvenienced by it.

I imagine that whenever something like this is set up, it's a small part of a large net. And when it is finally constructed, all one will have to do is declare martial law, pull the strings, and we'll be trapped inside. No, I'm not immediately paranoid, but over the course of years and decades, I can see us becoming accustomed to the threat on our privacy... to where we no longer mind its being violated, even.

I like what Kizyr said. We're trading civil rights for an illusion of safety. White House spokespeople talk about compromising our security by publicizing the methods. Yet, I would think that a determined enough terrorist would already have anticipated wiretapping. We can opt for more and more surveillance, and we might indeed be, in some measure, safer (from who? Ourselves?). But we will have traded trust for it. Instead of generally believing that others are innocent until proven guilty, we will always look for the guilt, and simply confirm our beliefs when we see it. I do not want to live a condemned man.

[Kizyr]

yeah, people say a lot of BS. ESPECIALLY while quoting. my theory is that they assume that ,since it's a quote, the thinking has been done FOR them.

now how can someone rightfully decide what someone else deserves?

The line is from Ben Franklin, by the way.

And you are right. You don't have the right to decide what other people deserve. Namely, you don't have the right to be trading my liberty for your false sense of security.

Quite simply, unwarranted wiretapping shouldn't concern you if:
A) You're white
B) You don't care about the principles on which this country was founded

If both of those apply, then, well, go ahead and ignore it all. KF

[Werefrog]

WOW! Calling a quote from one of the FOUNDING FATHERS of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BS is pretty funny.

Ben Franklin is my favorite of all the founding fathers. I mean... he wanted to make the turkey our national bird. How cool would that have been?

In fairness to B_G, the founding fathers weren't perfect. They were just men who were somehow able to pull 13 separate into a functioning whole united under a new form of government. However, let's not forget that to do this there were compromises that would have dire consequences for a large percent of the population then and less than 100 years later consequences for the nation as a whole.

This seems like as good of time as any to say that I am related to George Washington... supposedly.

[GhaleonOne]

This seems like as good of time as any to say that I am related to George Washington... supposedly.

John Adams here. Y'know, just saying and all.