Is Privacy Overrated?

[Stuco]

There is probbobly not many people who have not heard about Geroge Bushes act of leting the FBI and other agencies preform wire taps without having to have a warrent. Many people have opposed it but I cant see for what reason unless they are a criminal and dont want to be found because the feds dont care about your personal life. So why does it bother people? May affecct parinoid people that think the Bush administration is trying to take over the county. Theres my two cents.

Is privacy overrated in your opinion? Why? And how does this affect you?

 

[flicka]

How do you who cares about your personal life or how public that information will be? No, privacy is not over rated. And the idea that only criminals would object is a foolish and dangerous one.

 

[Nienor]

I have nothing to hide in my personal life, but that is no reasont o justify the government to learn anything they want to about me. I want my private life private and the world to know only what I want it to know. Privacy is not overrated.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

 

[Nightson]

There is probbobly not many people who have not heard about Geroge Bushes act of leting the FBI and other agencies preform wire taps without having to have a warrent. Many people have opposed it but I cant see for what reason unless they are a criminal and dont want to be found because the feds dont care about your personal life. So why does it bother people? May affecct parinoid people that think the Bush administration is trying to take over the county. Theres my two cents.

Is privacy overrated in your opinion? Why? And how does this affect you?

Ever read 1984? I suggest you do so.

 

[xAtheistx]

One must place limitations on the government's standings, lest you become slave to their will.

Phone taps are just the beginning. It's a slippery slope, and not one our government seems to want traction for.

Though not a criminal, I do not want to be a slave.

 

[kmoney]

There is probbobly not many people who have not heard about Geroge Bushes act of leting the FBI and other agencies preform wire taps without having to have a warrent. Many people have opposed it but I cant see for what reason unless they are a criminal and dont want to be found because the feds dont care about your personal life. So why does it bother people? May affecct parinoid people that think the Bush administration is trying to take over the county. Theres my two cents.

Is privacy overrated in your opinion? Why? And how does this affect you?

Well I agree that you don't have to be a criminal for this to bother you. It's more the principle of the matter. An argument can be made that these wiretaps don't violate the 4th amendment though, but a lot of it needs to be interpreted because the methods the government has now are not what the founding fathers would have known about. So the question is can you read wiretaps and other communications spying into the Constitution and Amendments.

I honestly think this is being blown into a bigger deal than it should be. Under FISA Bush could have secret warrants anyway so from the viewpoint of the person being spied on there is no difference. Whether the government has a secret warrant or no warrant what's the difference?
On the other hand given the capabilities Bush had under FISA one could question whether or not the warrantless wiretaps were even necessary. I guess it just gave him more speed given an emergency.

and to answer the question: No, I don't think privacy is overrated, but certain things should be able to override privacy.

 

[Helo]

Privacy is most definately not over-rated.

I have the right to be left alone if I did nothing wrong.

And if you think I did something wrong, you damn well better have some rock solid proof to invade my privacy.

 

[Febe]

There is probbobly not many people who have not heard about Geroge Bushes act of leting the FBI and other agencies preform wire taps without having to have a warrent. Many people have opposed it but I cant see for what reason unless they are a criminal and dont want to be found because the feds dont care about your personal life. So why does it bother people? May affecct parinoid people that think the Bush administration is trying to take over the county. Theres my two cents.

Is privacy overrated in your opinion? Why? And how does this affect you?

I would mind!
I try to live with God and I am certinly no criminal, but my private life is privet!

 

[Lokisdottir]

Oh, I am so sick of the idea that if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't bother you if you're being wiretapped or searched without a warrant. No, privacy is not overrated.

 

[hernyaccent]

Sorry if I don't want some FBI agent listening on as my friends and I discuss sex, family issues, social experiences and things that I keep private from many in my everyday dealings.

 

[kmoney]

yeah, and I'm sure Bush is spying on all of you and not people who are suspected of terrorist activities....

I just think this is being blown way out of proportion....

 

[hernyaccent]

yeah, and I'm sure Bush is spying on all of you and not people who are suspected of terrorist activities....

I just think this is being blown way out of proportion....

Many Americans can be suspected terrorists. What is the exact critria for being a suspected terrorist? In a country with such flawed intelligence ...who knows!

 

[SOTK]

Why don't we just let everybody do whatever they want in private? Including planning acts of violence to the country. After all, isn't privacy more important than secruity?

Come on folks! This is being blown out of proportion. Our privacy isn't being violated anymore than it ever has.

 

[kmoney]

Many Americans can be suspected terrorists. What is the exact critria for being a suspected terrorist? In a country with such flawed intelligence ...who knows!

I don't know, maybe the criteria is having communications with known terrorists or suspected terrorists. Of course we don't know exactly who is classified as a suspected terrorist. There can obviously be two extremes in trusting the government. I think people who are worried by this and think their liberties are being violated are erring on being too paranoid. Until I see a case where they've spied on someone that had absolutely no connection to any terrorist activity I'm going to trust that the government is using these wiretaps as they should.

 

[hernyaccent]

I don't know, maybe the criteria is having communications with known terrorists or suspected terrorists. Of course we don't know exactly who is classified as a suspected terrorist. There can obviously be two extremes in trusting the government. I think people who are worried by this and think their liberties are being violated are erring on being too paranoid. Until I see a case where they've spied on someone that had absolutely no connection to any terrorist activity I'm going to trust that the government is using these wiretaps as they should.

Well has the wire tapping lead to the arrest on any known terrorist on us soil? People are worried about their liberties being violated because they are being. Many people have been fingered as being potential terror suspects on things such as the "no fly" and it's turned out to be a mix up. Who is to say these wire taps won't be a mix-up? The US governments intelligence has been proven to be flawed quite a bite over the past few years. Why not present your evidence like in any case and get the proper paper work and warrents needed to tape these terrorists?

 

[savvy]

I don't think it is being too paranoid. Governments that have started down the road towards spying on their own citizens are never wiling to give up this power. Who could the government decide is a threat next? And if they did, they could spy on these new threats without warrant? It is a dangerous path. Privacy is a psychological need and something we should be entitled to. If the government has good reason to suspect that someone is a threat to the nation, they should be able to prove it. If they can prove it, they could get a warrant no problem. So why are they not doing this?

 

[Ampoliros]

For crying out loud people, its in the Constitution:

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.

Unless I read it wrong, it said something like that the rights of people against unreasonable searches shall not be violated. There's not grey area, here. There's no clause that says the Government gets to violate the Constitution if the citizens are scared enough. If you've got probable cause, then get a warrant and do it that way. If not, then you have no business wiretapping anything.

Bush should know this; he said the oath:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

[""]

Is Privacy Overrated?

NO.


I found this and thought it was applicable, as well as amusing.

To be serious though, I have friends say things like "what do I care if they tap my phones, listen in on my conversations, bug my home, my car, put chips in my clothes, monitor me from satellite, etc... I have nothing to hide." I will never get that simple minded, let-somebody-else-be-in-charge, attitude. It's mind boggling. It used to be that only paranoid people worried about this sort of thing, but now that it's actually come to be, all of those medicated people wandering around talking to themselves, suddenly seem more sane.

 

[momalle1]

I don't know, maybe the criteria is having communications with known terrorists or suspected terrorists. Of course we don't know exactly who is classified as a suspected terrorist. There can obviously be two extremes in trusting the government. I think people who are worried by this and think their liberties are being violated are erring on being too paranoid. Until I see a case where they've spied on someone that had absolutely no connection to any terrorist activity I'm going to trust that the government is using these wiretaps as they should.

If they were using them as they should, THEY WOULD HAVE WARRANTS!

How can you defend this when you admit to not knowing who it is they are listening to? here's a hint, if it were people that aren't US citizens, then there would be no issue as they are not protected, obviously, it is US citizens.

Ampoliros has it right, it doesn't matter if you or I or Bush thinks privacy is over rated, it's in the Constitution, end of story. (You do realize that the right to privacy is what abortion laws in the US are based on, right?)

 

[katautumn]

Well, let's see, have these illegal wiretaps proven beneficial? According to information gathered during an investigation, the Bush Administration knew the name of one of the plane hijackers from the 9-11 attacks prior to 9-11 because they had focused in on him during a wiretap session. So, remind me, how did knowing this seemingly crucial tidbit on information benefit us on September 11th? Oh, right...it didn't. Someone must have fallen asleep on the job. Now it's being said that innocent people are becoming victims of wiretapping and they are failing to go after the people whom they know pose a threat to national security. I don't have to be guilty of a crime to be concerned about this. I talk on the phone about what a moron I think Bush can be to my friends and relatives. According to the Patriot Act, that statement alone could make me a suspect and subject to illegal wiretapping. I don't want the government hearing all of my phone conversations.

Privacy is never overrated.