Re: This is going to sound really bad.edrikDecember 21 2005, 19:48:14 UTC
And at that point, what then? That will not occur suddenly one day with no surrounding legislation creping in making it easy for them to know when you've said something they don't like and harder to do anything about it? Do I think that is the point of this legislation? No, I'm not quite that paranoid, but it's not hard see it.
We've seen McCarthyism. McCarthyism with wiretaps would've been much worse. Dozens of people get imprisoned indefinitely nowadays going uncharged with their writ of Habeas Corpus suspended due to suspected terrorist links. I remember telling Knapstar oppressive governments, power to oppress did not appear as the governments became oppressive. Rather a government would do this, then allow domestic warrantless wiretapping, broaden the definition of suspicion of terrorist involvement and allowable response, focus more power with impunity in the executive branch, and slowly go after dissident "terrorists."
This reminds me of an account told to me by my political science professor, actually. I can't remember where it happened, but what happened was more and more restrictions went in place around what plumbing, carpentry, etc. work could be done in one's home, without notifying the government and applying for approval. The problem was approval began to take months, sometimes years. Eventually if your sink broke and you wanted approval, you'd theoretically have to wait quite a good deal of time with a broken sink. No one did, though. As long as the required notification was filed with the government, the government never took action against unapproved work, which became common. When the government effectively became a one-party system, however, opposition figures began getting visits by officers asking about unapproved work done to their homes. Oh, they'd waive the penalty, but in exchange you'd have to do your part by not involving yourself in what could be considered seditious activity. After all between unapproved construction and seditious activity, well, that would just be bad, and there would have to be consequences.
The approval was ostensibly along the lines of building codes here. They said it was to protect the homeowner and make sure illegal structure were not built. Perhaps it could have worked that way too. That it could have worked doesn't change the fact that it gave more power to the government than it needed. It also deprived homeowners of the right to do what they wanted with their property. It's not like they were doing anything illegal with their homes, either. According to my professor, similar restrictions slowly crept in in other areas as well.
Now, as I said, I don't believe that is the case here, but if nothing else, as Watergate proved, it could certainly become the case. History has proven if a point is reached where they dictate what can and cannot be said, it'll be far too late to quibble about civil liberties. Personally, though, what bothers me is regardless of how this does or does not tangibly affect me, my right to privacy is a right entitled to me. There is no reason for me to be bereft of it. That's all it comes down to. Hell, in the end if they tap my conversations these days, they can can do all those things you mention to the information they get. They'll have as little "effect" on me as the initial tapping. By the same regard, so would my constant surveillance with cameras, searches of my personal effects and hard drive whenever not in use, pictures taken of me while I shower, or a tracking chip placed under my skin. Neither of these would "effect" me or change my ability to live my life as I chose. Does that mean I should submit to them? No. I have a right to keep my private life just that, private, regardless of the lack of effect its surveillance will have on it.
Two last notes. Given that privacy is a right, why should my right be suspended if I'm innocent and have not been proven otherwise? Finally, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, (paraphrase because I can't remember the exact quote and the internet can't agree on it) those willing to trade a little liberty for a little security are deserving of neither.
Re: This is going to sound really bad.hallocoDecember 22 2005, 18:57:43 UTC
Everything you just said is all fine and well, but you're missing one glaring point:
It's just a phone tap. Just words being discussed from one person to another.
A house isn't being built. No one is taking naked pictures of you in the shower. We will not have chips implanted into our bodies bringing us one step closer to being assimilated. Camera's are not watching my every move inside the confines of my own home.
It's just a phone conversation. Nothing more, nothing less. All that is in a phone conversation, are words. They can listen to all the words they like, so long as they don't tell me which ones I can or cannot use. And though you seem to feel that they could, in fact, post those words in their LJ's, or sell them on Ebay... in the same respect, you could take a bite out of a nice juicy steak... but let's both be realistic here.
We've seen McCarthyism. McCarthyism with wiretaps would've been much worse. Dozens of people get imprisoned indefinitely nowadays going uncharged with their writ of Habeas Corpus suspended due to suspected terrorist links. I remember telling Knapstar oppressive governments, power to oppress did not appear as the governments became oppressive. Rather a government would do this, then allow domestic warrantless wiretapping, broaden the definition of suspicion of terrorist involvement and allowable response, focus more power with impunity in the executive branch, and slowly go after dissident "terrorists."
This reminds me of an account told to me by my political science professor, actually. I can't remember where it happened, but what happened was more and more restrictions went in place around what plumbing, carpentry, etc. work could be done in one's home, without notifying the government and applying for approval. The problem was approval began to take months, sometimes years. Eventually if your sink broke and you wanted approval, you'd theoretically have to wait quite a good deal of time with a broken sink. No one did, though. As long as the required notification was filed with the government, the government never took action against unapproved work, which became common. When the government effectively became a one-party system, however, opposition figures began getting visits by officers asking about unapproved work done to their homes. Oh, they'd waive the penalty, but in exchange you'd have to do your part by not involving yourself in what could be considered seditious activity. After all between unapproved construction and seditious activity, well, that would just be bad, and there would have to be consequences.
The approval was ostensibly along the lines of building codes here. They said it was to protect the homeowner and make sure illegal structure were not built. Perhaps it could have worked that way too. That it could have worked doesn't change the fact that it gave more power to the government than it needed. It also deprived homeowners of the right to do what they wanted with their property. It's not like they were doing anything illegal with their homes, either. According to my professor, similar restrictions slowly crept in in other areas as well.
Now, as I said, I don't believe that is the case here, but if nothing else, as Watergate proved, it could certainly become the case. History has proven if a point is reached where they dictate what can and cannot be said, it'll be far too late to quibble about civil liberties. Personally, though, what bothers me is regardless of how this does or does not tangibly affect me, my right to privacy is a right entitled to me. There is no reason for me to be bereft of it. That's all it comes down to. Hell, in the end if they tap my conversations these days, they can can do all those things you mention to the information they get. They'll have as little "effect" on me as the initial tapping. By the same regard, so would my constant surveillance with cameras, searches of my personal effects and hard drive whenever not in use, pictures taken of me while I shower, or a tracking chip placed under my skin. Neither of these would "effect" me or change my ability to live my life as I chose. Does that mean I should submit to them? No. I have a right to keep my private life just that, private, regardless of the lack of effect its surveillance will have on it.
Two last notes. Given that privacy is a right, why should my right be suspended if I'm innocent and have not been proven otherwise? Finally, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, (paraphrase because I can't remember the exact quote and the internet can't agree on it) those willing to trade a little liberty for a little security are deserving of neither.
Reply
It's just a phone tap. Just words being discussed from one person to another.
A house isn't being built. No one is taking naked pictures of you in the shower. We will not have chips implanted into our bodies bringing us one step closer to being assimilated. Camera's are not watching my every move inside the confines of my own home.
It's just a phone conversation. Nothing more, nothing less. All that is in a phone conversation, are words. They can listen to all the words they like, so long as they don't tell me which ones I can or cannot use. And though you seem to feel that they could, in fact, post those words in their LJ's, or sell them on Ebay... in the same respect, you could take a bite out of a nice juicy steak... but let's both be realistic here.
Reply
Leave a comment