OT: Survelliance in America

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 15:58 -0700, Jason Spatafore wrote:
> We shouldn't be as worried about being monitored as we should be worried
> about admission of the monitored activities in a court of law. 
> 
> I think it should be fine to be monitored on the Internet, just like you
> shouldn't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when walking down
> the street. The Internet is essentially a publicly monitored, yet
> private roadway. Anything going over the wires can and should be
> permitted to be monitored. When you pay a toll for a toll road, do you
> expect no cameras to be there because you paid to be on that road? The
> Internet is the same. 
> 
> However, I do not believe that such monitoring should be allowed in a
> court of law as "evidence" or that such monitoring should be permitted
> as "public information". 
> 
> What I mean here is that I think it should be illegal for a person to
> post a picture passed via email (or the email itself) onto a newsgroup
> or forum and mark it as "public information". Such an act should be
> considered illegal by some type of law, whether it's slander or some
> other already established law.
> 
> I also don't believe that such monitoring should be permitted to obtain
> a warrant to monitor nor should it be admissible as evidence. It
> shouldn't be illegal to *listen*, but it should be illegal to "repeat"
> or take action based off the information (much like insider trading
> laws). If I spy on my neighbor by packet sniffing his router, that
> should not be illegal. However, whatever I *do* with the information I
> obtained should be punishable by law. The same standards should be held
> to the government. 
> 
> Yes, you should be able to listen. No, you cannot do anything with what
> you've heard. 
> 
> Of course, you can take it one step further and ask: "Should the
> government be permitted to hack into your computer and watch you on the
> webcam connected to the PC?"
> 
> That's where I would say "No". The difference is because they are
> opening the door, not you. When you go online (physically take action
> to surf the net or send email), you are opening the door and stepping
> out into the street. When your computer is just connected to the
> Internet, then you are not out in the street...your door is closed and
> your expectation of privacy should be protected. (Locking your door is
> not an argument...you shouldn't have to lock your door to expect
> privacy....you should only have to close it.) 
----
There are multiple issues here. The one that seemed absolutely clear cut
was the issue of immunity for the telecoms because that prevents any
disclosure about what was done which seems to have been conducted
without legal authority. There are numerous trials in process that would
force the disclosure of what has been done on whose authority and this
is too important to allow it to be secreted away forever.

To actually discuss the current FISA legislation without weighing in on
the topic of retroactive immunity for the telecoms is a signal that you
don't have a clue what the topic of discussion actually is.

The other issue is that this particular administration has proven that
government is not to be trusted because they taken overly broad claims
of secrecy needs to prevent disclosure - to the point where they are
actually trying to conduct trials against accused persons without having
to disclose their evidence because of secrecy claims.

The erosion of public trust and the guarantees contained in the Bill of
Rights is sickening and should send a chill through all Americans. What
we have done in response to an isolated terrorist action on our soil is
nothing short of completely stupid.

Government uses fear against the people and we succeed when we have
transparency, not secrecy.

I cringe at the thought that the bulk of the citizens in the US don't
get this.

Craig