Time to redefine privacy

[Kccitystar]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States change their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil in order to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.

Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission.

The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping suits are pending.

The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco, California.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action suit, claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.

The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant immunity from suits such as this one.

Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails and listen to their phone calls without court oversight.

Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio, Texas, that he finds it odd that some would be concerned that the government may be listening in when people are "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an [internet service provider] who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data."

He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.

Millions of people in this country -- particularly young people -- already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."

"Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but [also] what safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere."

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy laws and American history.

"Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it together."

Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service.

"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy."

"It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,"' he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/11/ter...e.ap/index.html

This Kerr guy sounds like a complete douchebag. He's making the argument that since people choose to give up some private info (to buy something or participate in social networking) then they don't deserve any privacy? There's a huge difference between having people know your name, weight, and height to having private conversations about your wife and how you had sex with her recorded on a government server.

This almost certainly sounds like a violation of the First Amendment. If you can't speak freely for fear of being captured on recording devices or other methods of communication intercepts, then the government is violating your rights as a citizen. Right?

Nineteen Eighty Four here we come!...

[MarkB]

Everyone, get ready for Room 101!

[abc006]

This is just frightening, and really makes me want to punch someone. However, I'm a pacifist, so you're all safe.

"It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,"' he said.

This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. If anything in the last seven years has shown me, it's to NOT trust the government, especially "top intelligence officials." And then, he just sticks a "just" in there too. "It's just another violation of the constitution, that's all."

[RaptorQuiz]

This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. If anything in the last seven years has shown me, it's to NOT trust the government, especially "top intelligence officials." And then, he just sticks a "just" in there too. "It's just another violation of the constitution, that's all."

Never heard that saying before, eh, abc?

The point of that quote is sarcastic - you are in agreement with the originator of that quote - not disagreement.

[abc006]

My bad, that was a misread. (And, about the second in two days, too... :? ) I thought Kerr was saying that and not Opsahl. Now I get it, and I agree with him.

[NYM]

Do not fear.

Any law that goes against the Constitutional is deemed Unconstitutional and is not allowed to be passed no matter if every last person in the United States voted for it.

[abc006]

Do not fear.

Any law that goes against the Constitutional is deemed Unconstitutional and is not allowed to be passed no matter if every last person in the United States voted for it.

What?! NYM, first of all, citizens don't vote on laws, the US is a representative democracy. 6th grade Social Studies.

Second of all, the people who vote whether or not the law is unconstitutional or not is the supreme court. And we know just how nonbiased they are. So, actually it will most likely be allowed even if it is technically unconstitutional.

[ChicagoCubs720]

wow, that's a load of crap

uh oh, I shouldn't have said that. Here comes the Thought Police...

[KillerBs]

My Rights hurt.

[Kccitystar]

I'm telling you, we are headed for dystopia

[KillerBs]

There's a problem when it comes to rights and freedoms.

To gain freedom, we must lose security; to gain security, we must lose freedom.

At least we still can have guns!!!!

[Kccitystar]

To quote Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

The kicker is if you disagree with this stuff the government will just call you a terrorist. :lmao:

[NYM]

What?! NYM, first of all, citizens don't vote on laws, the US is a representative democracy. 6th grade Social Studies.

Second of all, the people who vote whether or not the law is unconstitutional or not is the supreme court. And we know just how nonbiased they are. So, actually it will most likely be allowed even if it is technically unconstitutional.

I know that. I'm just saying, if a law is unconstitutional, no matter how many people want it passed, it CANNOT be passed.

I'm not stupid.

[Guildster]

At least we still can have guns!!!!

Above all, never let them take that right away!

[AstroEric]

There's a problem when it comes to rights and freedoms.

To gain freedom, we must lose security; to gain security, we must lose freedom.

Consult your John Locke.

[MarkB]

I know that. I'm just saying, if a law is unconstitutional, no matter how many people want it passed, it CANNOT be passed.

I'm not stupid.

You've obviously not seem some of the amendments to laws passed since September 2001 - most are amendments hidden away in unrelated laws that are in direct violation of the first amendment. Check it out.

[Kccitystar]

Which brings me to my PATRIOT ACT blog.

[abc006]

I know that. I'm just saying, if a law is unconstitutional, no matter how many people want it passed, it CANNOT be passed.

I'm not stupid.

Errr, yes, it most certainly can. Like I said, the Supreme court decides if a law is unconstitutional or not. What they decide isn't necessarily true. If they decide a law prohibiting Hinduism in America is constitutional, they can uphold it completely and put it in as a law, even though it clearly isn't constitutional. It CAN defenitely be passed, especially since what is constitutional or not can be debated. The constitution isn't a quantitative list of numbers, and if anything goes over it it's considered unconstitutional. It's completely up to the people or the courts whether something is unconstitutional, therefore if people or the courts decide a a law is constitutional, even if it clearly isn't, if some people agree that it is, it stays that way. So... you're wrong. No "stupid," but wrong.