• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Privacy Versus Security, Choose One

Prospero

Thinker
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
176
In light of the USA Patriot Act that everyone is so fond of, I find myself thinking back to my time in high school when I participated in policy debate and one of our topics was that of privacy.

Considering that the Patriot Act increases security by decreasing the individual's privacy, I'm curious to see just how much anyone would be willing to sacrafice of their own privacy to ensure their own security.

Consider the argument that if you have nothing to hide, then the loss of privacy shouldn't bother you while the increase of security can only make things better for you. Is this really a valid argument?
 
It's not a valid argument because the feeling of security is an illusion. You may be more secure from terrorists but how about from your own government. Will they give up the powers when (and if) terrorism is defeated or will they hold onto them from now on. I don't trust Ashcroft and Bush but even if you do can you say you will trust every administration from now on. I cannot.

Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft are not allowed to take away our rights to increase our security. Their oath was to defend us, yes, but to defend our rights as well as our lives. It appears to me they are willing to take our rights and our damn Congress is aiding and abetting.
 
Prospero said:

Consider the argument that if you have nothing to hide, then the loss of privacy shouldn't bother you while the increase of security can only make things better for you. Is this really a valid argument?

The problem is that the loss of privacy DOES bother me. Even if all I checked out from the library is the newest Jeffery Deaver novel, nobody in the government has any business checking up on me to see that fact. Ashcroft says the Government has no interest in seeing what I have been reading but that doesn't reasssure me because the fact that they don't have any interest NOW doesn't mean that they won't have an interest LATER. And if instead of Jeffery Deaver I am checking out a book that is critical of the government even though I am doing nothing wrong it isn't much of a stretch to see how the government could use that info to find targets for harassment.
 
Shinytop said:
Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft are not allowed to take away our rights to increase our security. Their oath was to defend us, yes, but to defend our rights as well as our lives. It appears to me they are willing to take our rights and our damn Congress is aiding and abetting.

Exactly what rights have been taken away from us? What piece of legislature removes these rights?
 
Privacy or security is a false dichotomy. Because Bush et al state that they are too weak to protect us without curtailing civil liberties does not mean it cannot be done.

And it isn't an issue of "having something to hide". Our founding fathers knew that government officials will abuse their powers, even if their motives are honourable, unless restrained by law. One recent example is asset forfiture laws where due process was suspended (usually with the siezing authority using the proceeds for their departments). In many states that allowed this there were gross abuses where innocent people had assets siezed without trial, and sometimes without being accused of a crime. A case here in California involved an unemployed man who had a couple hundred in cash in his pocket and who was loitering outside a house while a drug bust was occuring. He was never connected to the activity in the house, but the police reasoned that the money must have come from drugs and siezed it. Actually, he had just cashed his unemployment check, but he had to hire a lawyer at his own expense to recover the money because the law did not require the police to prove their allegations before siezing the money.

Power corrupts even honourable men. That's why we fight so hard against any erosion of civil liberties...
 
How about the right to not have Ashcroft's underlings sifting through our personal records. The guy is a creep. We'd probably be shocked at what HE would take out of the library (assuming he reads, of course).
 
ssibal said:


Exactly what rights have been taken away from us? What piece of legislature removes these rights?

The Patriot Act allows the law enforcement agencies to say you are a terrorists or are aiding terrorism and they do not have to prove it to get a wire tap, etc. Let me say that again, they do not have to prove it, only say it. Tell me there are not law enforcement agencies who will take advantage of this. Even if you trust Bush/Ascroft, tell me there is not somebody, someday who will bust their opponents with this law.

Now try this on for size since you have apparently not been reading the news. They can take away your right to speedy trial or even to have an attorney by simply saying you are a terrorist. Did you read that? Have you read the papers? They are already implementing this on American citizens. They are stripping your Constitutional rights without proof, by their say so. Sorry everybody, I don't trust anybody that much.
 
Shinytop said:

The Patriot Act allows the law enforcement agencies to say you are a terrorists or are aiding terrorism and they do not have to prove it to get a wire tap, etc. Let me say that again, they do not have to prove it, only say it.

The Patriot Act says no such thing. If anything, that might be the worse case scenario in the request for the ex parte order. The decision would still be up to a judge, and if you think judges would be so incompetent concerning this then you must be really paranoid concerning their performance with anything else.

Tell me there are not law enforcement agencies who will take advantage of this. Even if you trust Bush/Ascroft, tell me there is not somebody, someday who will bust their opponents with this law.

And what makes you think it would stand up in court since the monitoring was under the suspicion that you were a terrorist?

Now try this on for size since you have apparently not been reading the news. They can take away your right to speedy trial or even to have an attorney by simply saying you are a terrorist. Did you read that? Have you read the papers? They are already implementing this on American citizens. They are stripping your Constitutional rights without proof, by their say so. Sorry everybody, I don't trust anybody that much.

Hey, did you read this: "What piece of legislature removes these rights?" Unless there is some sort of legislature that removes our rights to speedy trial or an attorney just by saying you are a terrorist, the government's actions are no different than if they walked down the street randomly shooting people.
 
This seems to be a "no-brainer". If you remove privacy then you will essential remove the individual. Privacy is your right to free thought and how you share that thought(s). Individuals (idealistically speaking) are the foundation of a democracy and the absolute essential of a capitalistic economy. Both systems I prefer.

Security? So what, and my true thoughts are my own business.

Charlie (censored by Ashcroft) Monoxide
 
Ssibal, I thought since you were asking questions you had a genuine interest. My mistake.

Have you heard of Jose Padilla?
http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2037444.stm
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/22/0622/92456

Now I do not know the extent of Mr. Padilla's crimes. It is certainly not a slam dunk that he is guilty but let's not even question that. He is an American citizen who has had his right to speedy trial removed because a law enforcement man said he is an enemy combatant. How do they figure? But more importantly, how did they prove it and who did they prove it to. This is an American citizen and the Patriot Act is allowing his rights to be taken away.

Now you talk about a court eventually overthrowing a case. How will you give anybody back the months or years they have lost? Will the government reimburse them? I don't think so. But even if they paid him millions how do you reimburse somebody's assasinated character that cannot be returned? How do you make up for over a year in jail or for the matter days?

What you are missing is that when they do away with due process you are SOL on the government's say so.

So it says no such thing? Try reading this:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Here are some relevant parts:
Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:
Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.
Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General's office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court.
ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211.
New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance. They are 1) § 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC §2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, §§ 803, 805).
 
I have to agree with shinytop

From a CNN story:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Absent agreement, the court will impose conditions," Mukasey wrote. "Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel, and it is certainly not an invitation to conduct further 'dialogue' about whether he is permitted to do so."

He said Padilla "must have the opportunity to present evidence that undermines" the government's accusations stated publicly by Attorney General John Ashcroft, though no formal charges have ever been filed. "The only practicable way to present evidence, if he has any and chooses to do so, is through counsel," the judge said.

The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, had said in the memo that attorney access might spoil the "sense of dependency and trust" Padilla may have developed with his interrogators. Jacoby revealed that the interrogators' technique is to create "a relationship in which the subject perceives that he is reliant on his interrogators for his basic needs and desires."

Coercing confessions in this manner is un-American. The defense department claimed that Padilla entered the U.S. with plans for a dirty bomb. As for how dangerous these plans might be, keep in mind that in the following week, every domestic media outlet described these plans in great detail. If one didn't know how to make a dirty bomb before Padilla's arrest was announced, one certainly knew afterwards.

As for lost freedoms and rights, I believe that we are moving more towards a Kafka/Orwell vision than a Franklin/Jefferson vision when the government can:

-ask librarians for names of people who have checked out "subversive or dangerous" books and prevent librarians from disclosing any information to anyone about such secret investigations. They cannot even release the titles of books that the FBI has enquired about in the past.

-monitor "routing and addressing information" of all e-mail traffic without a warrant

-perform secret searches of homes. (which prevents people from stopping mistaken or even illegal searches)

-send undercover agents into houses of worship to monitor activities.

-monitor attorney/client conversations!

-issue roving wire-taps that allow the police to tap any phone that a particular person uses.

-mine credit card data for overly-broad patterns in order to begin investigations.

-require banks to monitor everyone's patterns of withdrawls and deposits and to report suspicious activity to the government.
 
Shinytop said:
Ssibal, I thought since you were asking questions you had a genuine interest. My mistake.

Have you heard of Jose Padilla?
http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2037444.stm
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/22/0622/92456

Now I do not know the extent of Mr. Padilla's crimes. It is certainly not a slam dunk that he is guilty but let's not even question that. He is an American citizen who has had his right to speedy trial removed because a law enforcement man said he is an enemy combatant. How do they figure? But more importantly, how did they prove it and who did they prove it to. This is an American citizen and the Patriot Act is allowing his rights to be taken away.

This is exactly what I was talking about. The Padilla case is no different than if a government agent went around shooting people randomly. Sorry, but it is not the Patriot Act that is allowing his rights to be taken away. Nowhere in the Patriot Act will you find the phrase "enemy combatant" nor will you find anything about removing your right to a speedy trial. If there is any legal basis in what has been done to Padilla, it certainly is not in the Patriot Act.

Now you talk about a court eventually overthrowing a case. How will you give anybody back the months or years they have lost? Will the government reimburse them? I don't think so. But even if they paid him millions how do you reimburse somebody's assasinated character that cannot be returned? How do you make up for over a year in jail or for the matter days?

You cannot, but that is a poor reason to remove a law since anybody can be wrongly accused/convicted of any crime.

What you are missing is that when they do away with due process you are SOL on the government's say so.

Due process has not been done away with. If you think it has then please show the specific piece of legislature that removes it.

So it says no such thing? Try reading this:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Here are some relevant parts:

Correct, it says no such thing. How about trying to read the actual legislature rather than doomsday scenarios of how it can be abused. I am sure you could come up with doomsday scenarios for abuse of nearly any piece of legislature.
 


Correct, it says no such thing. How about trying to read the actual legislature rather than doomsday scenarios of how it can be abused. I am sure you could come up with doomsday scenarios for abuse of nearly any piece of legislature.
[/QUOTE]

In actuality the exact wording talks about the modifications to existing law. You do not have to accept my interpretations or even the interpretations (doomsday you call them) of the experts quoted. But how do you ignore the actual use made of the laws by the Bush administration. Before the Patiot Act the government was required to seek quick trial, let the accused hire his own attorney and was allowed visitation.

But hey, when they come for you I hope somebody is still around to cry "foul".
 
Shinytop said:


In actuality the exact wording talks about the modifications to existing law. You do not have to accept my interpretations or even the interpretations (doomsday you call them) of the experts quoted. But how do you ignore the actual use made of the laws by the Bush administration. Before the Patiot Act the government was required to seek quick trial, let the accused hire his own attorney and was allowed visitation.

But hey, when they come for you I hope somebody is still around to cry "foul".

But you see, the government is still required to seek a quick trial and let the accused hire his own attorney and allow visitation. The Patriot Act does not remove any of those rights, the government has never even cited the Patriot Act as a reason for why they are doing what they are doing to Padilla. Padilla is being denyed his rights, he has not lost them neither have you or any other U.S. citizens. There is no law that has been enacted that has removed the rights that Padilla is being denyed. The case is indeed foul, but it is not a result of the Patriot Act.
 
Yes yes, the patriot act by john asshcroft and the chimp robs you of privacy.

For instance, it gives law enforcement the same tools to pursue the terrorists as they already have to pursue mafia and drug rings.

See, you have been _robbed_ or your privacy and civil rights. The evidence is clear.
 
Our pre-911 security was just fine. The problem wasnt the police powers but the incompetence 'tween law enforcement agencies.
 
privacy. The world is WAY too risk-adverse.

As George Carlin would say, 'Take a f---ing chance! Live a little, and stop freaking worrying all the time!"

When it's your time to go, it is your time to go. I don't live my life worrying about every little thing.
 
Our pre-911 security was just fine. The problem wasnt the police powers but the incompetence 'tween law enforcement agencies.

That was part of it, but another part of the problem of pre-9/11 security was FBI funding/direction. As documented by author Ron Kessler, in 2001, many FBI offices were using 386 or 486 computers that were not networked which made it rather difficult to assess threats in a timely basis. Louis Freeh made only token efforts to increase the use of technology after being appointed director in 1993.
 
Re: Re: Privacy Versus Security, Choose One

Michael Redman said:
I dispute your assumption. Can you provide any evidence?

I actually think that's the crux of the argument. Arguably, by decreasing privacy, terrorists foolish enough to employ electronic means to share whatever malevolent plans they have developed could be recognized ahead of time through programs like that delightful Carnivore program that everyone was so happy to learn was going through any Email it felt like hijacking. However, I don't necessarily see that as altogether likely. I posed my opening post to be slightly inflammatory, expecting people to question various aspects. I was just placing a popular argument in the public forum to be discussed, even if it didn't contain my views, per se. Personally, I find the USA Partiot Act to be an egregious violation of countless rights, but simultaneously view it as a knee-jerk reaction that will be systematically toned down until the ratio between security and individual rights reaches a maximum. Then again, I try to be optimistic.
 

Back
Top Bottom