3 Reasons the "Nothing to Hide" Crowd Should Be Worried

[telling tiger 156]

Facebook, Google have responded and now Microsoft. http://news.msn.com/us/beyond-prism-an-even-bigger-data-seizure

[quietfan 233]

Sorry, but I'm not finding the part where this only applies if you feel you have nothing to hide:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's quite straightforward. You don't get to gather info on people who haven't done anything then go fishing.

Don't like it? There's a process outlined in the Constitution for amending it. Follow that process.

^Exactly^ It's not about who "does or doesn't have something to hide", it's about checks and balances and whether any part of the government has the right to reach so deeply into the lives and homes of any of its citizens at will, with autonomy and limited or "secret" oversight. The genius of the Founding Fathers was in constructing a viable system of government that limited itself through a carefully planned system of checks and balances, and the guarantee that the People always held the ultimate power. It's good to remember that every right protected in the Constitution was given such protection specifically because not only Britain, but most of the governments of Europe were violating those rights. And those written protections were precisely crafted and worded for meaning by some of the greatest minds and writers of all time. If our system was better than those governments then, and we believe it is still the best form of government on earth, it's because of following that careful blueprint--not from ignoring it, looking for loopholes, or abandoning it out of fear. I believe it was also one of those Founding Fathers who said : "He who gives up liberty for security gets [or 'deserves'?] neither."

[homersapien 11,812]

You are old enough to have only had phone service back in the day from Ma Bell. My phone company has my info just like Ma Bell had yours then. They knew who you called, how long you talked and charged you accordingly. That is about as much of a non-issue as I can imagine. Companies profile us all day everyday, the mayo coupon you get in Sunday's paper is determined by demographic purchasing for your area and if you've used debit, check or credit, even by your SPECIFIC address. I don't want it and want it prevented. If you feel differently, carry on. I won't be changing my opinion of it.

So, your complaint is more against modern reality in general than anything the government is doing?

[homersapien 11,812]

Sorry, but I'm not finding the part where this only applies if you feel you have nothing to hide:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's quite straightforward. You don't get to gather info on people who haven't done anything then go fishing.

Don't like it? There's a process outlined in the Constitution for amending it. Follow that process.

^Exactly^ It's not about who "does or doesn't have something to hide", it's about checks and balances and whether any part of the government has the right to reach so deeply into the lives and homes of any of its citizens at will, with autonomy and limited or "secret" oversight. The genius of the Founding Fathers was in constructing a viable system of government that limited itself through a carefully planned system of checks and balances, and the guarantee that the People always held the ultimate power. It's good to remember that every right protected in the Constitution was given such protection specifically because not only Britain, but most of the governments of Europe were violating those rights. And those written protections were precisely crafted and worded for meaning by some of the greatest minds and writers of all time. If our system was better than those governments then, and we believe it is still the best form of government on earth, it's because of following that careful blueprint--not from ignoring it, looking for loopholes, or abandoning it out of fear. I believe it was also one of those Founding Fathers who said : "He who gives up liberty for security gets [or 'deserves'?] neither."

But is there really anything about this (NSA phone meta data collection) that could be considered unconstitutional?

[telling tiger 156]

That is BS, What I'm against and do not want, is the government to access my private communications with no reason. It isn't nearly as complicated or antiquated as you attempt to make it.

[homersapien 11,812]

That is BS, What I'm against and do not want, is the government to access my private communications with no reason. It isn't nearly as complicated or antiquated as you attempt to make it.

What is BS? I am just trying to figure out exactly what you are reacting to.

The collection of meta data on phone calls is a simple fact. It's done legally by private companies, and it's been done legally by the government. We've known about the private companies from the beginning and we've known about the government since the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (at least regarding what was being called "wiretaps" at the time.

So we are back to the question, are you OK with that data being collected (and used) by private companies? In other words, is it only the government that you feel shouldn't be collecting it?

If the answer is "yes", I'd like to know why you make such a distinction.

If the answer is "no", then let's discuss the trade-offs between security and privacy and what you would prefer to see in your perfect world.

[telling tiger 156]

What part of you doesn't understand that Kraft food products storing your purchasing history has no effect on your personal rights? The expectations I have of food companies, is that they offer me value and keep our food supply as safe as possible. Do they pose some other threat to you I'm unaware of? TRUST ME, that is a rhetorical question, your answer is unneeded, because they do not pose a threat to you today nor tomorrow. A constitutional guarantee was posted earlier in this thread. In a earlier period of time on this board , there were those who spoke out in ultimate defense of the right to bear arms. I feel the same way about our right to privacy, unreasonable search, seizure and observation. I feel the same way about our rights of expression and artistic freedom, I have worked most of my life, in an industry that is greatly dependent on that expression and HATE the attempts to stifle it. We live in a FREE society, not a police state. If you feel differently, knock yourself out. I'd suggest a ball peen hammer. <<<<<JOKE, but Homer what freedom is there if you give it up in the name of security. That point was also made earlier in this thread. If you do not mind the content of your life being known by any government, go for it. Don't ask me too, it won't happen without a fight. As far as a perfect world, there isn't one and to suggest that I said there was one, would get your arse blown out of the water by me. That was a stupid comment. Stupid comments are the very thing I have defended you against on this forum.

[homersapien 11,812]

What part of you doesn't understand that Kraft food products storing your purchasing history has no effect on your personal rights? The expectations I have of food companies, is that they offer me value and keep our food supply as safe as possible. Do they pose some other threat to you I'm unaware of? TRUST ME, that is a rhetorical question, your answer is unneeded, because they do not pose a threat to you today nor tomorrow. A constitutional guarantee was posted earlier in this thread. In a earlier period of time on this board , there were those who spoke out in ultimate defense of the right to bear arms. I feel the same way about our right to privacy, unreasonable search, seizure and observation. I feel the same way about our rights of expression and artistic freedom, I have worked most of my life, in an industry that is greatly dependent on that expression and HATE the attempts to stifle it. We live in a FREE society, not a police state. If you feel differently, knock yourself out. I'd suggest a ball peen hammer. <<<<<JOKE, but Homer what freedom is there if you give it up in the name of security. That point was also made earlier in this thread. If you do not mind the content of your life being known by any government, go for it. Don't ask me too, it won't happen without a fight. As far as a perfect world, there isn't one and to suggest that I said there was one, would get your arse blown out of the water by me. That was a stupid comment. Stupid comments are the very thing I have defended you against on this forum.

Well, I am very sorry that I upset you. Like I said, I think it is past time we had this debate and I would just as soon have it with someone who is more thoughtful than someone who is simply thinking fast and speaking from their emotional center.

I am not naive about data and privacy. But I think it is important to recognize the simple facts regarding data and privacy when trying to formulate the equation between privacy and security. If you are not interested in parsing the nuances, that's fine.

Regarding Kraft (Amazon.com, etc.) analyzing my purchasing habits, yes, I am somewhat concerned that such information could be misused to characterize me to people without my knowledge.

But my point is this is already happening. And more so than Kraft. Phone companies, internet providers and of course internet sites all accumulate such data (not to mention my local grocery store.)

Furthermore, many of us actually volunteer much more information than can be simply gathered as a result of using a phone, computer or credit card. Much, much more if you consider "social" sites.

You said: The expectations I have of food companies, is that they offer me value and keep our food supply as safe as possible. Do they pose some other threat to you I'm unaware of? TRUST ME, that is a rhetorical question, your answer is unneeded, because they do not pose a threat to you today nor tomorrow.

I submit that is a "stupid comment". But it illustrates exactly the point I am trying to make. Why would you automatically trust a private company with this data and explicitly distrust the government? Does that little "I agree" box you check to their terms really give you that much comfort?

And why should a private company, who is only obligated to return a profit to their owners, give a crap about your privacy? Why would they not sell data they already own to a health insurance company (for example) in return for a tidy profit?

The government on the other hand, represents the people. We have the power regarding how the government operates. We have no power over what private industry does (other than through legislation). We, through our representatives, have set up a system of checks and balances for how the executive branch collects and utilizes data.

And to paraphrase your statement, our expectation of the government is to provide us security (a "good product").

Could they pose a threat by operating outside of the rules? Of course they could. Just like private companies could. In fact, private companies have more incentive to mine and sell personalized data than does the government. The government is trying to prevent terrorist attacks. Private companies are interested in simply making a dollar.

Regardless, our duty is to set up systems to prevent abuse, which we supposedly have done.

Considering the potential of future terrorist attacks, I think a strong case can be made that the trade-off between privacy and security regarding the analysis of meta data is a reasonable one.

A lot of the rhetoric I am seeing on this subject seems to be coming from the same sort of logic that insists we need assault rifles and cases of ammo to resist a takeover by a tyrannical government. I don't think it is based in reality.

[telling tiger 156]

Again, exactly what threat is the brand of mayo you purchase being known and shared with the people who send you coupons for it? EXACTLY what is a Kraft's. nefarious intent, a profit? Sales in a consumer culture? lol. Silly as hell. APPLES and ORANGES. I'm not providing you with rhetoric that equates the two. I'm supplying you with the expectation of privacy as guaranteed by our constitution. I'm not a criminal. Do not treat me as one before I have done something to warrant that treatment.

[alexava 6,974]

What part of you doesn't understand that Kraft food products storing your purchasing history has no effect on your personal rights? The expectations I have of food companies, is that they offer me value and keep our food supply as safe as possible. Do they pose some other threat to you I'm unaware of? TRUST ME, that is a rhetorical question, your answer is unneeded, because they do not pose a threat to you today nor tomorrow. A constitutional guarantee was posted earlier in this thread. In a earlier period of time on this board , there were those who spoke out in ultimate defense of the right to bear arms. I feel the same way about our right to privacy, unreasonable search, seizure and observation. I feel the same way about our rights of expression and artistic freedom, I have worked most of my life, in an industry that is greatly dependent on that expression and HATE the attempts to stifle it. We live in a FREE society, not a police state. If you feel differently, knock yourself out. I'd suggest a ball peen hammer. <<<<<JOKE, but Homer what freedom is there if you give it up in the name of security. That point was also made earlier in this thread. If you do not mind the content of your life being known by any government, go for it. Don't ask me too, it won't happen without a fight. As far as a perfect world, there isn't one and to suggest that I said there was one, would get your arse blown out of the water by me. That was a stupid comment. Stupid comments are the very thing I have defended you against on this forum.

Well, I am very sorry that I upset you. Like I said, I think it is past time we had this debate and I would just as soon have it with someone who more thoughtful than someone who is simply thinking fast and speaking from their emotional center.

I am not naive about data and privacy. But I think it is important to recognize the simple facts regarding data and privacy when trying to formulate the equation between privacy and security. If you are not interested in parsing the nuances, that's fine.

Regarding Kraft (Amazon.com, etc.) analyzing my purchasing habits, yes, I am somewhat concerned that such information could be misused to characterize me to people without my knowledge.

But my point is this is already happening. And more so than Kraft. Phone companies, internet providers and of course internet sites all accumulate such data (not to mention my local grocery store.)

Furthermore, many of us actually volunteer much more information than can be simply gathered as a result of using a phone, computer or credit card. Much, much more if you consider "social" sites.

You said: The expectations I have of food companies, is that they offer me value and keep our food supply as safe as possible. Do they pose some other threat to you I'm unaware of? TRUST ME, that is a rhetorical question, your answer is unneeded, because they do not pose a threat to you today nor tomorrow.

I submit that is a "stupid comment". But it illustrates exactly the point I am trying to make. Why would you automatically trust a private company with this data and explicitly distrust the government? Does that little "I agree" box you check to their terms really give you that much comfort.

And why should a private company, who is only obligated to return a profit to their owners, give a crap about your privacy? Why would they not sell data they already own to a health insurance company (for example) in return for a tidy profit?

The government on the other hand, represents the people. We have the power regarding how the government operates. We have no power over what private industry does (other than through legislation). We, through our representatives, have set up a system of checks and balances for how the executive branch collects and utilizes data.

And to paraphrase your statement, our expectation of the government is to provide us security (a "good product").

Could they pose a threat by operating outside of the rules? Of course they could. Just like private companies could. In fact, private companies have more incentive to mine and sell personalized data than does the government. The government is trying to prevent terrorist attacks. Private companies are interested in simply making a dollar.

Regardless, our duty is to set up systems to prevent abuse, which we supposedly have done.

Considering the potential of future terrorist attacks, I think a strong case can be made that the trade-off between privacy and security regarding the analysis of meta data is a reasonable one.

A lot of the rhetoric I am seeing on this subject seems to be coming from the same sort of logic that insists we need assault rifles and cases of ammo to resist a takeover by a tyrannical government. I don't think it is based in reality.

this^^last paragraph is a good analogy. do you people think the government has hired tens of thousands of people to sit and randomly listen to all phone calls? I would assume that call patterns to certain people and certain places and calls linked to those calls are being listened to. I hope that is what is happening. I doubt the government listened to me talk to my wife 6 times, mom, brother twice, along with 7 other various calls yesterday. if they did they are some bored sumbitches.

[telling tiger 156]

Haven't said they have, 10's of thousands sumbitches sitting around listening to my calls. I will say they have ZERO need for any info on my calls without a warrant issued upon actual need for my surveillance. Amazing to me the willingness with which people are willing to give up personal right of privacy. OH YEAH, we have freedom of association too, via the phone, email and text, I have talked to some very unpopular political and artistic folks. Can you see the potential for abuse? I'm not saying it has been abused, I'm saying I do not want it to happen without just cause. They do not have and will not have that cause. Serious overreaching.

[alexava 6,974]

that's just it TT. they are not listening to you because they don't care. they are not trying to pin a random petty crime on you. unless you are making frequent calls to Pakistan or Gaza or talking to someone who is. you are very likely not on their radar. you share that same right to privacy as the terrorists do. does that not make you reconsider this at all.

[telling tiger 156]

I do not want them to have the opportunity to listen to me. They have no reason. They shouldn't have the opportunity without a warrant explicitly for me, not a court order for the entire country and if it is from a FISA court, you have completely no idea what that court order and "warrant" allows them to do. It doesn't make me reconsider it at all. I am a devout civil libertarian and will remain so. The list of people I call belongs with my phone company and me. If I am suspected of doing something they can certainly seek a warrant. AFTER, not before. I never suggested they were trying to pin a random petty crime on me, where some of the defense of this comes from is incomprehensible. Name me one power a government has granted itself that has not been used, lol. Get back to me when you come up with an answer other than none.

[Ouchyfish 67]

Why don't you want your government listening to your phone calls or collecting data? Do you think they would do something bad to you?

I've been assured that this isn't possible. :-\

[homersapien 11,812]

Again, exactly what threat is the brand of mayo you purchase being known and shared with the people who send you coupons for it? EXACTLY what is a Kraft's. nefarious intent, a profit? Sales in a consumer culture? lol. Silly as hell. APPLES and ORANGES. I'm not providing you with rhetoric that equates the two. I'm supplying you with the expectation of privacy as guaranteed by our constitution. I'm not a criminal. Do not treat me as one before I have done something to warrant that treatment.

You are the one who brought up Kraft as an example, not me. I was actually thinking of the phone, ISP and credit card companies.

They have the same data that you feel is so threatening if gathered by the government.

And the government is not treating you as a "criminal". They are collecting all meta data from everyone. They are not singling you out a priori any more than if they gathered the data in a phone book without the names and addresses. It takes a subpoena to investigate your personal call patterns, which is the way it was before prior to the "computer" age.

[homersapien 11,812]

Haven't said they have, 10's of thousands sumbitches sitting around listening to my calls. I will say they have ZERO need for any info on my calls without a warrant issued upon actual need for my surveillance. Amazing to me the willingness with which people are willing to give up personal right of privacy. OH YEAH, we have freedom of association too, via the phone, email and text, I have talked to some very unpopular political and artistic folks. Can you see the potential for abuse? I'm not saying it has been abused, I'm saying I do not want it to happen without just cause. They do not have and will not have that cause. Serious overreaching.

Well, see, that's the conflict.

I think such gathering of meta data, to be analysed with a warrant, is not an unreasonable trade-off in privacy for the security benefits. In fact, I don't see it as much of an invasion of privacy at all. I am much more concerned about emerging drone technology than I am meta data (for example).

And you are correct. The government has ZERO need for data on YOUR phone calls without a warrant issued upon actual need for it. That is exactly how they are approaching it.

Would you simply do away with the NSA or FBI in the name of preventing possible abuses? If not, then the question becomes just how much do you want to hinder their abilities in the name of preventing possible abuses. I don't think collection of meta data with checks balances on how it can be used represents a dire threat to your - or my - privacy.

On the other hand, the threat of a major terrorist attack on our country is very real and ongoing.

[telling tiger 156]

Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft have revealed how they treat the request and try to limit the scope of the specific info on specific customer accounts. FOR A COMPANY and this appears to be the hard part for you, a customers account and privacy is paramount or they lose customers and corporate credibility . Kraft was nothing but a highly simplified example. Google even traces your key words on THIS SITE so they can target advertising to you. I use technology all day, everyday, none of them have I needed you to explain it to me, lol. Today isn't going to start that trend.

[telling tiger 156]

I am INFINITELY more than willing to change my mind ,given more info. WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are arguing from a standpoint that you have all the facts of a secret program. WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE YET. Neither one of us has all the info of orders from a secret court. While you are entitled to your OPINION, you are not entitled to call it fact. We have other people on this forum who do that. You are arguing to a deaf ear. The ONLY thing that I will adapt my opinion to is FACT, something you cannot claim to have, it is unavailable.

[homersapien 11,812]

Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft have revealed how they treat the request and try to limit the scope of the specific info on specific customer accounts. FOR A COMPANY and this appears to be the hard part for you, a customers account and privacy is paramount or they lose customers and corporate credibility . Kraft was nothing but a highly simplified example. Google even traces your key words on THIS SITE so they can target advertising to you. I use technology all day, everyday, none of them have I needed you to explain it to me, lol. Today isn't going to start that trend.

So I take it you are OK with a company to possess the same data the government has, even though you have zero oversight and zero influence over how it is used, but somehow the government represents a unique threat even though the government is obligated to operate with checks and balances and is ultimately subject to the power of all citizens.

And let's not forget that private companies are in it for the money, while the government is trying to protect you from attack.

Let's also not forget that private companies may be controlled by foreign entities.

Sorry, I just don't see the logic here.

[homersapien 11,812]

I am INFINITELY more than willing to change my mind ,given more info. WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are arguing from a standpoint that you have all the facts of a secret program. WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE YET. Neither one of us has all the info of orders from a secret court. While you are entitled to your OPINION, you are not entitled to call it fact. We have other people on this forum who do that. You are arguing to a deaf ear. The ONLY thing that I will adapt my opinion to is FACT, something you cannot claim to have, it is unavailable.

No, I am basing my arguments on what we do know about the program. Like you, I reserve the right to change my position in the light of new information. This is not about me claiming facts that aren't true.

As far as I am concerned we are arguing the principle of privacy vs. security which is not a new subject. It's the technology that has changed. We can have this debate based on the "facts" as we understand them or even on the hypothetical for that matter.

[telling tiger 156]

A company will lose the one thing it values most if it compromises your info. The customer. You are right you are not following the logic, because you are not using any. We do not have to use google, it is FAR from the only search engine in the world. From your very keyboard, you can access any number of engines that need never cross google's path. Tech companies realize the potential loss if they compromise your info. That said, list selling happens all day everyday, even from something as mundane as your car or home insurance company. They sell your info too. Entire businesses are built around selling your purchasing interest. Your bank has all your info, do you think they would risk the loss of customers from compromising your primary financial info? If so, hell then post it online for all to see, lol.

[telling tiger 156]

Homer, YOU are having the debate with yourself, I'm completely unaffected by your opinion of this.

[homersapien 11,812]

Homer, YOU are having the debate with yourself, I'm completely unaffected by your opinion of this.

That's becoming increasingly evident.

[quietfan 233]

Sorry, but I'm not finding the part where this only applies if you feel you have nothing to hide:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's quite straightforward. You don't get to gather info on people who haven't done anything then go fishing.

Don't like it? There's a process outlined in the Constitution for amending it. Follow that process.

^Exactly^ It's not about who "does or doesn't have something to hide", it's about checks and balances and whether any part of the government has the right to reach so deeply into the lives and homes of any of its citizens at will, with autonomy and limited or "secret" oversight. The genius of the Founding Fathers was in constructing a viable system of government that limited itself through a carefully planned system of checks and balances, and the guarantee that the People always held the ultimate power. It's good to remember that every right protected in the Constitution was given such protection specifically because not only Britain, but most of the governments of Europe were violating those rights. And those written protections were precisely crafted and worded for meaning by some of the greatest minds and writers of all time. If our system was better than those governments then, and we believe it is still the best form of government on earth, it's because of following that careful blueprint--not from ignoring it, looking for loopholes, or abandoning it out of fear. I believe it was also one of those Founding Fathers who said : "He who gives up liberty for security gets [or 'deserves'?] neither."

But is there really anything about this (NSA phone meta data collection) that could be considered unconstitutional?

Well, sure, that's the whole question: How do we interpret the 4th Amendment, which Titan posted? As of now, the Supreme Court has not ruled it (the NSA action) unconstitutional, but I believe they should and hopefully they will upon review. To me, my mere possession or use a phone, the internet, e-mail, and/or a credit card does NOT provide the government with probable cause to search/pry into my person, house, papers, or effects. To me, mass collection of millions of peoples' records is too overreaching, too random, and not specific enough to qualify as "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

[telling tiger 156]

As recently as 4 scant weeks ago, before the intelligence committee, someone from the NSA denied they were using metadata techniques. THAT MEANS THE PERSON LIED TO THE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING THEM. Checks and balances going good for you so far? I'll quote you in response to my complaint, "but they are not doing that." You are privy to what information the rest of us aren't? Share it, because the vast majority of the American elected representatives just found out themselves. You are hella connected aren't you?