You don't need any tools per se, but I know where you're coming from. I agree with you on how wrong it is, and I realise that it's more than fighting terrorism, it's about control.
Yeah, I would like to clarify that this isn't a donkey Vs elephant debate (that'll come later...) The issue of privacy is something that we as humans have invented. A monkey, a rabbit or a shark don't give two hoots about what anything else thinks of them. In fact a monkey will pretty much happily play with himself in front of his entire family and humans at a zoo (I think they get bored...). However, does that mean that as humans if we want to do something by ourselves without somebody watching then we should lose that right? No. Does it make it better that it's just another human looking over to make sure we're not doing something worse like polishing a gun? I'm trying my best to remain impartial in this debate but I think it's important that everyone has the right to privacy and I think it's incredibly sad that as a species we've become so distrusting of each other that some of us feel we need to be kept tabs on just in case
Moody, you nailed it on the head, brother. That's the way they sell it to the public. If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy? They also work so hard to make us think that anybody could be a terrorist, therefore, we should keep spying on everyone just in case. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control. When people know they're being watched, they watch what they say. They might be less likely to voice their opposition to the government because they don't wanna end up on a terrorism watch list. They want us in a constant state of fear, so they can exert control and crush dissent.
Ironically, the persons who came up with that phrase was Goebbels, head of propaganda for Germany in WW2...
It's nothing to apologise for. I was being a tad pedantic, but it's a valid point that for most Europeans this is a less pressing issue because of our existing statutory rights. For Americans I suspect there are the usual ideological issue of big-vs-small government, and a misunderstanding of what 'privacy' actually means and what legal protections you have and do not have. My view is that 'spying' is not a matter of moral right-and-wrong, only a legal right-and-wrong. I think it's great that more citizens are realising how little legal protection for their personal data exists in the United States, and outrage should be the motivator to get Congress to draft and pass a Federal bill to give you that protection. Do you know if any bills have been introduced, and what progress is being made towards this? But you must realise that these companies can currently do this lawfully because you do not have legal protection of your personal data (currently). The question came up years ago that most T&Cs back then would not be legally enforceable in a European jurisdiction, because you cannot surrender your statutory rights by agreeing to a private contract. There was never a test case, but now all T&Cs have to have the disclaimer: this does not affect your statutory rights. Any opt-in or opt-out options have to be clearly separated at the end of the document and cannot be bypassed. Recently Google was forced to comply with another European Commission requirement to have search results de-listed if they concerned your personal information and there was no 'public interest' exemption, so old news articles would be hidden from view if they were no longer relevant. There's a simple procedure for this. I like the 'voluntary disclose' argument, but this does not apply to the government. Refuse to answer before the Court or the Bar? Contempt of Court or Contempt of Congress, go to jail. Lie before the Court or Congress? Perjury, go to jail. Refuse to answer in a government document, expect it to be binned. Give false information? That's making a fraudulent statement, go to jail. As for your birth certificate, without it how do you prove that you're a citizen protected by your constitutional rights? Spying is essentially passive, and whatever is voiced in public or unsecured on the internet is in the public domain. However entering your home, searching your home, reading your mail, wire-tapping your phone, hacking your encryption, are all unlawful because it violates your property rights, not your 'privacy' rights. This is what the 4th and 5th amendments are about, building on an established common law protection of property pre-dating the revolution and adding further protection against government interference in your home and family life without a Court order. If I was American I would be far more outraged and concerned at the abuses of public bodies against private property, for example Civil Forfeiture, and some examples of eminent domain with dubious claims to 'public use' (I'm going seize your house so we can build a shopping mall). edit: fixed BB code
To be honest, I don't care. The MSA can do what they want, I do t have anything to hide. If the MSA's sneaky phone hacks can protect from future terrorist attacks or threats to my, or other good hearted people, then I think they should do whatever it takes to prevent it.
Even if what they do prevents only one attack, I'm totally happy with them. You shouldn't care if you have nothing to hide
I'm going to get back to the other posts in this thread, but something just came to my mind that I wanna toss out there real quick. And this really goes out to the "I have nothing to hide therefore, I don't need privacy" crowd. Let's say, hypothetically, that you have a daughter between the age of, oh I don't know, 12-15 years old. Do you feel comfortable with an NSA analyst in his 20's or 30's browsing through her unclothed pictures that she texted to her boyfriend? No privacy needed, right? Trust our government?