and irrroncare!

I’m happy I don’t live in countries that are still fighting for freedom –those countries are probably living better because they don’t worry about primitive topics concerned with the Self constantly…

all this privacy boils down to following the constitution. if we would have followed the constitution we could have avoided many things that the “average joe” can feel right now and thats his pocket… are you with me? may i explain… its simple, our forefathers fought damn hard to give each of us the liberties we have. Oh yes… and even to the freedom to not even do a damn thing about our freedom or care about how it will affect our friends or families. why do these clowns have the right to not care, vote, study history, understand our constitution, or even educate ones self? because our forefathers believed that every person should have their privacy to be stupid if they so choose.

… Now, how or where does this affect the “average joe” pockets? every privacy infringing act the Government does affects the “average Joe” not just in their phone call, email, financial, medical, organization joining, and group affiliation… It hits their pockets in TAXES every time the Government Grows another program out of its ass to support these constitution infringing acts it calls domestic spying program, patriot act… etc. etc. it is not the wicked, but the weak that allow this Government encroachment to happen. Its the people that live in denial, its the people that say “if it dont affect me i dont care” wake up people do you think you would be living in this country with the right of apathy (or stupidity) today if our founding fathers said the same damn thing? Our constitution does not give the Government the right to to infringe on our privacy, its in our constitution that those people died to give us our rights. So saying that they can come kick in your door with writs of assistance because you do not have anything to hide is like spitting on the very reason our country fought for a r3volution.

So I say to you “average joe” the next time you pay $5 at the ga$ pump or wonder why your beer is taxed so much you can blame BIG Government for raising taxes to support these expensive spy and data mining programs. I believe in America not Government. “he who gives up even a little liberty for security, is stupid” -Rich

If your so willing to give up your rights perhaps you should pack up your stuff and move to China where big brother is always watching. Perhaps then you would gain some insight in why these rights to privacy were put in the constitution in the first place

I can not even believe this is an argument.

Scare scare Monger Monger is obviously working if we have people that will just throw away there constitutional rights which our forfathers fought so hard to earn for us. Anyone who says I have nothing to hide as an excuse for what is happening with data collection and warentless wiretaps should be ashamed. Your just afraid, and the fear has tainted your basic common sence.

Advocate: “Yes, but knowledge about you and everyone else is power, and power corrupts. Who will watch the watchers?”

Those who do out themselves as liberals (now) or conservatives (in FDR’s time) or socialist or communist in the McCarthy era run a serious risk of being seen as ‘out of the mainstream’. Some may relish their iconoclasm, but many would never thump their chest on a box in the park and let their leanings be known. It is their choice to hide or not to hide – but all of the above are actually legal and theoretically the world will let them be. But theory is not always in conjunction with the world.

The attitude has been voiced by many on the right in recent years, that liberalism is essentially considered a crime or a deviant mental aberration. In reality, it has been an ongoing presence in U.S. political life since the beginnings of the Republic. But those on the right, especially those who thought that there would be a permanent Republican majority, think that they should actively intimidate, excoriate and, politically speaking, kill off all the liberals. Liberals are seen as “the enemy”, just as Richard Nixon seemed to see anyone who disagreed with him as someone to put on his enemies list.

My contentions are two fold:

1.) That the people who are pushing for non-warrant NSA data mining are also the ones who I believe are the most likely to use it – now or in the future – to put people on an enemies list, to the detriment (possibly for a very long time) of those so labeled.

2.) That the people pushing for such data mining are also ones who seem to me likely to widen the data mining to include things other than the admitted-to terrorism targets. I have zero faith in these people that this wider swath has not already been done. It has come out in recent months that there is more than just the one program by the NSA (possibly by another agency(ies) in or out of the government), though the public nor the Congress is not being told what those other programs are. Even the NSA one was hidden, and the source of its outing is still being sought in order to prosecute the person(s) who brought the government’s illegality to the public’s notice.

That last may be the real, strongest, argument against the NSA wiretapping/eavesdropping/data mining:

If it is legal, why did they choose to keep it secret? From whom? Why keep it secret if the government has nothing to hide?

The people who argue “if you have nothing to hide” don’t even apply that same question to the NSA program!

The ‘terrorists’ certainly knew their communications were at risk, in many ways, so it cannot be that the government was concerned that the terrorists would discover they are being watched. The only other groups to keep it secret from is the public, the Congress, and the courts. Especially they would want to hide it from those in the public who know what the existing law is and has been, and who would seek to stop it. We all know that FISA was sufficient for 30 years, and still is. Violating FISA IS against the law, clearly and specifically. They had every opportunity to follow FISA, and they did, sometimes, but not always. The times they chose not to, they did so completely aware that they were doing things contrary to FISA. The Congress when writing FISA made a very conscious effort to weigh privacy heavily, to not violate the Constitution in that regard. They would not have written those safeguards in if it was not important. This government intentionally chose not to follow either FISA or the Constitution when setting out the NSA program. The government DOES have something to hide – its own criminal actions. The law is the law.

(P.S. Does Congress passing laws saying that the NSA program is legal NOW exonerate people who violated FISA in the past? In other words, does ex post facto work in reverse?)

People don’t come with forehead labels like “honest person”, “hardworking citizen”, “serial killer”, “stalker/rapist”, “kind fatherly gentlement”, “child abuser”. If they did, it would be easy to tell who to be honest with and who to keep information from or lie to outright. The fact is that you don’t have to have done something wrong to draw the attention of a sick, evil, twisted person.

Every piece of information you give to someone who wants to hurt you makes it easier for them to do it. Since you can’t tell the difference between “Just a nice guy” and “Wants to cut you into little pieces”, you are putting yourself and your family in danger every time you are free and loose with information.

…

I also go into how this applies to the government, but this post is getting long. The full article is posted here:

http://www.jeremyduffy.com/privacy-security/nothing-to-hide/

If he is so concerned about spying on people, then he deserves to be spied on as well. Supeona his Admins. and lock them all up. Since he is so anxious about spying on people, know what I’m saying?

Now everybody know he is crutty. He cant

brainwash people anymore. No no No No not like before. The same thing Richard Nixon use to be doing. Lying to them during non-radio events. Blending in with people. Then puts on a whole different personality on T.V. then blends back in with people during offset. And people be trying ro figure out how he keeps his approval rating so high. Now they know, and they ain’t going for it no more, no no no no not like before.

If he is so concerned about spying on people, then he deserves to be spied on as well. Supeona his Admins. and lock them all up. Since he is so anxious about spying on people, know what I’m saying?

Now everybody know he is crutty. He cant

brainwash people anymore. No no No No not like before. The same thing Richard Nixon use to be doing. Lying to them during non-radio events. Blending in with people. Then puts on a whole different personality on T.V. then blends back in with people during offset. And people be trying ro figure out how he keeps his approval rating so high. Now they know, and they ain’t going for it no more, no no no no not like before.

-under the US Constitution, there is a mechanism for this-it’s called GET EVIDENCE and GET A WARRANT.

-The invasion of privacy means that change becames nearly impossible if not outright impossible. ANYBODY who disagrees with the Govt on anything suddenly is termed an “enemy of the state” (ironically, since they are usually trying to improve things and/or throw off an oppressive govt. Because their right to privacy is violated, change becames nearly a pipedream.)

-It is simply a basic Human Right (you know, one of those things that people take an oath to uphold in the Constitution-yes, the right to privacy DOES exist in the Constitution it’s called the PENUMBRA-look it up)

-One of the most disingenuous argument against privacy is that it’s “necessary”. I challenge ANYONE who reads this show me how violating privacy is “necessary”. Any information that the govt TRULY needs on someone (I define truly here as something that is legitmately needed, not just because some Govt wacko says so or has a Paranoid-power trip complex or because it is convenient for the govt) can be Legitmately obtained by going through the already existing constitutional process.

-the last and most importnat point-wihtout the right to privacy, to free speech, etc, our nation becomes a joke and a nightmare. It is all over at that point and you might as well live in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or any of their modern counterparts. Nothing matters after that. I absolutely reject the argument that it is important to have “security” at the expense of freedom. The argument is 100% false. Oh, and BTW for all you right wingers who like to disingenuously hold up pictures of the Founding Fathers, here’s quote for you from…a Founding Father:

“those who would sacrifice freedom for the sake of security deserve neither.”

-Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

1. The government is trying to convince us that they need this info to combat terrorism, but no one seems to be pointing out the fact that the government had enough information to do much more to stop 9/11, yet they either misused it, or completely ignored it. Why are we consenting to give them MORE information when they didn’t use correctly what they had to begin with? Rather than taking more information, why not use all that money to make better use of what they have?

2. They were/are taking the information ILLEGALLY. They weren’t going through the proper channels, even though those channels allowed them to go back and get warrants after they searched. They just did what they wanted to do with no regard to the law. This alone should point out the reason the government should not be trusted with personal information. If someone is going to have access to my records, I want a judge signing off and saying, “Yes, you have probable cause to check this person’s records further.”

I think we miss the point and give up control of the argument when we try to respond to the comment of “If you have nothing to hide…”. I think we should say, “Congratulations on having nothing to hide, but that’s not really the point.” Then we should bring up the various reasons giving up liberties is bad. Point out past abuses by the government. Point out the illegal spying the government has already done. Point out that our government has shown that they don’t know what to do with the information they have, so giving them more only furthers the possibility that they misuse or become confused by more information. Etc, etc, etc.

We’re wasting our time trying to respond to BS, simplistic arguments. Take back control of the argument and make your own point rather than spinning in circles trying to reply to their point.

If they knew, for example, that you were looking at sites about murder and that you ordered a pick-axe from Ebay and that you also wrote a recent blog entry about how terribly depressed you’ve been since you broke up with your significant other, who’s to say you wouldn’t kill them? But the argument mentioned in the article was a good enough one, I thought.

Something that just occured to me, though.. A lot of us – or some of us – are ultimately worried about government officials and law enforcement agents incriminating us for things no one really considers a crime, right? Not a bad gripe. But the silver lining in all of this is that if one of us really did get incriminated for something frivilous, we could hypothetically find out all the juicy information that whoever incriminated us was trying to keep secret and put his ass in jail next to us, right? Even with the worst of politicians breathing down our necks, the beauty is we can be afforded their dirty little secrets, too.

If they knew, for example, that you were looking at sites about murder and that you ordered a pick-axe from Ebay and that you also wrote a recent blog entry about how terribly depressed you’ve been since you broke up with your significant other, who’s to say you wouldn’t kill them? But the argument mentioned in the article was a good enough one, I thought.

Something that just occured to me, though.. A lot of us – or some of us – are ultimately worried about government officials and law enforcement agents incriminating us for things no one really considers a crime, right? Not a bad gripe. But the silver lining in all of this is that if one of us really did get incriminated for something frivilous, we could hypothetically find out all the juicy information that whoever incriminated us was trying to keep secret and put his ass in jail next to us, right? Even with the worst of politicians breathing down our necks, the beauty is we can be afforded their dirty little secrets, too.

If they knew, for example, that you were looking at sites about murder and that you ordered a pick-axe from Ebay and that you also wrote a recent blog entry about how terribly depressed you’ve been since you broke up with your significant other, who’s to say you wouldn’t kill them? But the argument mentioned in the article was a good enough one, I thought.

Something that just occured to me, though.. A lot of us – or some of us – are ultimately worried about government officials and law enforcement agents incriminating us for things no one really considers a crime, right? Not a bad gripe. But the silver lining in all of this is that if one of us really did get incriminated for something frivilous, we could hypothetically find out all the juicy information that whoever incriminated us was trying to keep secret and put his ass in jail next to us, right? Even with the worst of politicians breathing down our necks, the beauty is we can be afforded their dirty little secrets, too.

Back when all this stuff hit the news, I was working for a very wealthy businessman, a fully legit kind of guy to us average folk. He too, waved it off with a confident “I’ve got nothing to hide”. The hardest-hitting answer I could come up with for him would be if he was looking over my shoulder right now!

Also, do we forget the most important words of our Constitution: “…the people…establish and ordain this…”

‘This’ being the United States Government – our agent. The principal retains an inherent right to privacy over the agent it created for its own benefit.

I, so far, haven’t yet heard anyone give the nothing to hide argument who was speaking truthfully! What they all meant is, there’s nothing I can get in trouble for – that I can forsee. They believe that ultimately our government is and will remain inherently benign and will dutifully serve us of its own accord.

What will some of these people say the day they discover that their new vehicle automatically reports traffic violations to the police, and the penalties have automatically been taken from their bank account?

Tricky Dick (That’s Richard Nixon for you youngsters) might not have broken the law at all today, or might not have had to. Gice that some thought…

If an unwillingness to trust those who seek positions of power was good enough for John Adams, it is good enough for me. Anyone else remember J. Edgar Hoover? It ain’t speculation if it already happened!

Watchguy

If an unwillingness to trust those who seek positions of power was good enough for John Adams, it is good enough for me. Anyone else remember J. Edgar Hoover? It ain’t speculation if it already happened!

Watchguy