The Mythical Right of Privacy

[AGBF]

The headlines are scaring me and unfortunately I am not simply scared about the whereabouts of the Malaysian airliner or whether Vladimir Putin's ambition to take over the world can be contained. I am scared that the CIA thinks it can stop the oversight of the legislative branch of government. I am scared that the NSA thinks it can spy on American citizens and foreign heads of State with impunity.

I was a bit cheered that American businesses may have at least a small price tag attached to their complicity with the NSA in the spying thing. Here is an excerpt from a technology article in today's, "The New York Times". Now I have to worry about Diane Feinstein and what club she can use on the CIA.

"Microsoft has lost customers, including the government of Brazil.

IBM is spending more than a billion dollars to build data centers overseas to reassure foreign customers that their information is safe from prying eyes in the United States government.

And tech companies abroad, from Europe to South America, say they are gaining customers that are shunning United States providers, suspicious because of the revelations by Edward J. Snowden that tied these providers to the National Security Agency’s vast surveillance program.

Even as Washington grapples with the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr. Snowden’s leaks, the more urgent issue, companies and analysts say, is economic. Tech executives, including Eric E. Schmidt of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, are expected to raise the issue when they return to the White House on Friday for a meeting with President Obama.

It is impossible to see now the full economic ramifications of the spying disclosures— in part because most companies are locked in multiyear contracts — but the pieces are beginning to add up as businesses question the trustworthiness of American technology products.

The confirmation hearing last week for the new N.S.A. chief, the video appearance of Mr. Snowden at a technology conference in Texas and the drip of new details about government spying have kept attention focused on an issue that many tech executives hoped would go away.

Despite the tech companies’ assertions that they provide information on their customers only when required under law — and not knowingly through a back door — the perception that they enabled the spying program has lingered."

Deb/AGBF

 

[AGBF]

The headlines are scaring me and unfortunately I am not simply scared about the whereabouts of the Malaysian airliner or whether Vladimir Putin's ambition to take over the world can be contained. I am scared that the CIA thinks it can stop the oversight of the legislative branch of government. I am scared that the NSA thinks it can spy on American citizens and foreign heads of State with impunity.

I was a bit cheered that American businesses may have at least a small price tag attached to their complicity with the NSA in the spying thing. Here is an excerpt from a technology article in today's, "The New York Times". Now I have to worry about Diane Feinstein and what club she can use on the CIA.

Here is a little bit to chew on about what the CIA has been up to. And they are now trying to intimidate Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senator Intelligence Committee! Everybody who cares about democracy had better wake up!

"It was a truly historic moment on Tuesday when Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein took to the Senate floor to warn that the CIA’s continuing coverup of its torture program is threatening our constitutional division of power. By blatantly concealing what Feinstein condemned as 'the horrible details of a CIA program that never, never, never should have existed,' the spy agency now acts as a power unto itself, and the agency’s outrages have finally aroused the senator’s umbrage.

As Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee that will be investigating Feinstein’s charges, noted, 'in 40 years here, it was one of the best speeches I’d ever heard and one of the most important.' That was particularly so, given that Feinstein’s searing indictment of the CIA’s decade-long subversion of congressional oversight of its torture program comes from a senator who previously has worked overtime to justify the subversion of democratic governance by the CIA and other spy agencies.

But clearly the lady has by now had enough, given the CIA’s recent hacking of her Senate committee’s computers in an effort to suppress a key piece of evidence supporting the veracity of the committee’s completed but still not released 6,300-page study that the CIA is bent on suppressing."

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

"The New York Times" reported that, "In a Jan. 27 letter to Ms. Feinstein that became public last week, the C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, did not directly accuse the committee of computer hacking. He said that documents 'may have been improperly obtained and/or retained' on a part of the C.I.A.’s computer network that had been designated for the committee’s use."

This was an obvious attempt to undermine Senator Dianne Feinstein by accusing her, the person in charge of the Senate Committee with oversight of the CIA, with a crime!

That has led to consequences for the CIA.

This is also from, "The New York Times".

"The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said on Thursday that he had ordered a forensic examination of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s computer equipment to answer what he called the C.I.A.’s 'absurd' claims that the committee’s staff had hacked into the agency’s network.

Mr. Reid’s order is the latest round of an escalating fight between the C.I.A. and the Intelligence Committee, which has oversight authority over the agency.

Last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the committee, accused the C.I.A. of monitoring computers used by committee staff members to complete their investigation of the agency’s detention and interrogation programs — an action she said may have broken the law. She said that the agency had also improperly removed documents from the committee’s computers on two other occasions in 2010.

...​

In letters sent to Mr. Brennan and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday, Mr. Reid said he had instructed the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms to conduct a forensic analysis of the committee’s computers to resolve the question of misbehavior on the part of committee staff members.

'The C.I.A. has produced no evidence to support its claims that Senate committee staff who have no technical training somehow hacked into the C.I.A.’s highly secure classified networks, an allegation that appears on its face to be patently absurd,' Mr. Reid wrote to Mr. Brennan.

In his letter to Mr. Holder, Mr. Reid singled out a former acting general counsel of the C.I.A., Robert Eatinger, for referring the C.I.A.’s claims to the Justice Department even though he was mentioned 1,600 times in the Intelligence Committee’s report on C.I.A. interrogation. Mr. Reid added that the referral 'appears to be a transparent attempt to intimidate the committee and undermine its oversight of the agency.'

...​

Mr. Reid wrote that he was stepping into the conflict between Congress and the C.I.A. because he had 'a responsibility to protect the independence and effectiveness of our institution.'

'You are no doubt aware of the grave and unprecedented concerns with regard to constitutional separation of powers this action raises,' he wrote to Mr. Brennan, adding that 'to ensure its independence, I ask that you take whatever steps necessary to ensure that C.I.A. personnel refrain from further interaction related to this issue with Senate staff other than the sergeant-at-arms.'"


AGBF

 

[klewis]

Thanks AGBF. I read about this recently and after reading your post today I searched for and watched a video of Senator Feinstein addressing the US Senate where she sets the record straight.
Most interesting, but not surprising, is to discover that the individual who has apparently referred the committee to the Justice Department for investigation is the very same person who is mentioned over 1600 times in the reviewed documents. Mentioned due to their involvement in the counter terrorism program that the Senate Committee is reviewing.

 

[AGBF]

Thanks for responding, klewis. Karl started this timely thread and I wanted to link this thread to his.

Thread on the US Navy Spying on US citizens...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/even-the-us-navy-is-spying-on-you.199966/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/even-the-us-navy-is-spying-on-you.199966/[/URL]

AGBF

 

[perry]

Here is another thing most people do not know.

Every piece of mail sent through the US Postal service is photographed front and back.

Law enforcement can in a few days or a week trace any letter or postcard back to the originating post office and the day it was mailed - and in some cases to the very mailbox it was sent from.

They can build a profile of you based on every piece of mail you have received - or sent with your return address on it.

As far as any kind of internet based transaction. There is no and never will be privacy. The system was built for robustness - not security. Only by use of special encryption software can you protect any data. Then the receiving party must know the code to decipher it. Might I suggest that sending that code via electronic means (or telephone call) is not secure.

I am debating setting up an internet service for email in another country. The problem of course is that to communicate with them uses the internet between here and there. Also, any emails sent to that address from the US and many other countries are of course recorded.

Being secure and having privacy is a tough nut to crack.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[AprilBaby]

It stinks but I honestly have nothing to hide.

 

[AGBF]

It stinks but I honestly have nothing to hide.

I do not think that the issue to be debated should be whether someone has "something to hide". I think that the issue to be debated should be whether we citizens of the United States want our government now to be able to have the right to invade our privacy without proving it has just cause to a judge.

Deb/AGBF

 

[missy]

It stinks but I honestly have nothing to hide.

I do not think that the issue to be debated should be whether someone has "something to hide". I think that the issue to be debated should be whether we citizens of the United States want our government now to be able to have the right to invade our privacy without proving it has just cause to a judge.

Deb/AGBF

I agree. While I have nothing to hide I certainly don't want the government or anyone else for that matter spying on me. What's next?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[ksinger]

It stinks but I honestly have nothing to hide.

I do not think that the issue to be debated should be whether someone has "something to hide". I think that the issue to be debated should be whether we citizens of the United States want our government now to be able to have the right to invade our privacy without proving it has just cause to a judge.

Deb/AGBF

Well, I for one, found Zuckerberg's umbrage set my irony meter clanging on "max". Like FB isn't trying to circumvent your privacy at every single turn. Pot calling kettle!

My husband and I discuss this issue (privacy) quite often. I am more concerned with government agencies being out of control - like I truly believe the NSA and CIA to be - and using our information for less than honorable purposes, and he points out that we seem much less concerned about how the telecoms and other large corporations are storing/selling/using the information about us that they claim is theirs. I point out in turn that while that is true, the entity that has the ability to use that information to put a person in a deep dark hole and never let them out, is government. We are both correct, and both flavors of concern seem increasingly moot, sadly.

So it becomes an issue of who "owns" the information. It is an extremely complex issue. Of course, information about individuals has always existed. The difference now, it the vast computing power that allows those seemingly unrelated pieces of data to be correlated to provide a serious outline of who you are. THAT is completely new.

And my observation, when talking to others, is that not very many people anymore, care that their lives are laid out for anyone with enough money and computing power to see. They just do NOT care. And the care level decreases as you go down in age. The under 30's pretty much shrug and say, "So?" You can't miss the privacy you never had.

I pretty much think, all raging against the dying of the light notwithstanding, that our march forward into that dystopian total-surveillance future cannot now be stopped.

 

[movie zombie]

most people don't think they have anything to hide......until they come for you.

 

[AGBF]

And my observation, when talking to others, is that not very many people anymore, care that their lives are laid out for anyone with enough money and computing power to see. They just do NOT care. And the care level decreases as you go down in age. The under 30's pretty much shrug and say, "So?" You can't miss the privacy you never had.

I agree that most people do not appear to care, and that frightens me greatly. It is as if an entire generation of Americans missed the civics lesson in which we were told that we had the right to live in safety within our own homes unless a judge said that there was cause to enter our homes to investigate us. Can this be the same country that defends the right to bear arms? What is the use of having arms to defend ourselves against a government that might take our rights if the government has already stolen our rights and we did not care? Did not protest their taking our rights?

I pretty much think, all raging against the dying of the light notwithstanding, that our march forward into that dystopian total-surveillance future cannot now be stopped.

Edward Snowden said something similar. He said that people born now would never know privacy. But that is unacceptable and un-American. Our constitutional right is to be safe from the government unless it has just cause to investigate us.

AGBF

 

[ksinger]

And my observation, when talking to others, is that not very many people anymore, care that their lives are laid out for anyone with enough money and computing power to see. They just do NOT care. And the care level decreases as you go down in age. The under 30's pretty much shrug and say, "So?" You can't miss the privacy you never had.

I agree that most people do not appear to care, and that frightens me greatly. It is as if an entire generation of Americans missed the civics lesson in which we were told that we had the right to live in safety within our own homes unless a judge said that there was cause to enter our homes to investigate us. Can this be the same country that defends the right to bear arms? What is the use of having arms to defend ourselves against a government that might take our rights if the government has already stolen our rights and we did not care? Did not protest their taking our rights?

I pretty much think, all raging against the dying of the light notwithstanding, that our march forward into that dystopian total-surveillance future cannot now be stopped.

Edward Snowden said something similar. He said that people born now would never know privacy. But that is unacceptable and un-American. Our constitutional right is to be safe from the government unless it has just cause to investigate us.

AGBF

True, I would not argue that, although I confess that hearing the phrase "un-American" makes me cringe. What the heck does that mean anyway? It usually means whatever the person using it is against, is bad, not that there is anything definable. I needn't remind you of all people that in times past, we've had similar (albeit less high tech) periods where privacy took a huge hit. (See Woodrow Wilson). The populace bowing down to the perceived exigencies of the time, is quite American, actually. It's why the endless "war on terror" has been so necessary. Just keep telling them that it's required, and voila! No prob.

But if the people uncritically accept the rules of the game - as defined by the rule-makers - then what can you do? I am personally creeped-out each time I use my debit card and tell myself I really should go back to cash, but I don't stop using it. It's too convenient. We've all become addicted to that convenience - connectivity, speed - they've made the carrot really tasty. And I don't think it was some big conspiracy, then or even now. I think that the lure of so much information was and is, just too much. And the level of knowledge and vigilance required to circumvent even a portion of that information collection, is way more than most people have or WANT to have.

And remember, the government could not collect that information without the help of a LOT of people outside the government, in the large corporations that collect it and then give it (freely or under duress and for a big fat lucrative fee) to that government. As my husband muses, why are we not as upset about that? Because that IS a critical piece of the picture too.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Well, here's a little light. Edward Snowden exposed the Googles, the Facebooks,ect. not just on the fact that they were giving the Gov't info, but how much info they were supplying without any outcry from said companies. Upon learning of how much info Gov't was receiving, customers of these companies did in fact holler. That is the reason you had the big meeting last Friday. The companies themselves were embarrassed by the exposure and now, due to customer complaints, want to pare down the info that Gov't can get from said companies. So complain. They don't want to lose customers, particularly in other countries. Brazil will no longer allow American companies to control the internet--too much spying on their citizens.

IBM(I think) made a statement they will not co-operate with Gov't on data mining.

I don't use facebook, but I think every part of my life is surveilled in some way. Yesterday, i went to the Dr. and a new Gov't medical surveillance has been put in place with Medicare. The upshoot is that these are questions your Dr. can get from you, but is now going to Medicare after each visit.

You do have to complain. It gets tiring, but those businesses want your business so complain to them.

I believe we all have secrets of some sort. Not that they are criminal or dishonest, but if I have breast implants thats no -ones business but mine if I want to tell it. Just an example. If i wish to make donations to obsure charities or groups, that is my business alone. ECT. ECT.

I do see it in the wind, freedom is on its way out, if people don;t wise up.


Annette

 

[ksinger]

Hi,

Well, here's a little light. Edward Snowden exposed the Googles, the Facebooks,ect. not just on the fact that they were giving the Gov't info, but how much info they were supplying without any outcry from said companies. Upon learning of how much info Gov't was receiving, customers of these companies did in fact holler. That is the reason you had the big meeting last Friday. The companies themselves were embarrassed by the exposure and now, due to customer complaints, want to pare down the info that Gov't can get from said companies. So complain. They don't want to lose customers, particularly in other countries. Brazil will no longer allow American companies to control the internet--too much spying on their citizens.

IBM(I think) made a statement they will not co-operate with Gov't on data mining.

I don't use facebook, but I think every part of my life is surveilled in some way. Yesterday, i went to the Dr. and a new Gov't medical surveillance has been put in place with Medicare. The upshoot is that these are questions your Dr. can get from you, but is now going to Medicare after each visit.

You do have to complain. It gets tiring, but those businesses want your business so complain to them.

I believe we all have secrets of some sort. Not that they are criminal or dishonest, but if I have breast implants thats no -ones business but mine if I want to tell it. Just an example. If i wish to make donations to obsure charities or groups, that is my business alone. ECT. ECT.

I do see it in the wind, freedom is on its way out, if people don;t wise up.


Annette

It IS sad to me though, that in order for companies (who are really just flesh and blood hiding behind a corporate facade) to be motivated to do the "right" thing, or to even question, there has to be financial pressure. I'm really tired of ethics never being able to trump the amoral market-mind that we've held up as the best arbiter of what is best for society. Saying "let the market decide" is and always will be a moral cop-out. Just like we don't - or say we don't and shouldn't - deal in hookers and blow, or sell our children just because there is a market for them, we should not be selling information to the extent that we do.

 

[Indylady]

It stinks but I honestly have nothing to hide.

I do not think that the issue to be debated should be whether someone has "something to hide". I think that the issue to be debated should be whether we citizens of the United States want our government now to be able to have the right to invade our privacy without proving it has just cause to a judge.

Deb/AGBF

I agree; its more than an unfortunate matter--its a violation of a constitutional right. The framers specifically created the 4th Amendment to protect Americans against unwarranted/unreasonable search and seizure. The NSA's program is a direct and flagrant violation of that.

 

[AGBF]

It stinks but I honestly have nothing to hide.

I do not think that the issue to be debated should be whether someone has "something to hide". I think that the issue to be debated should be whether we citizens of the United States want our government now to be able to have the right to invade our privacy without proving it has just cause to a judge.

I agree; its more than an unfortunate matter--its a violation of a constitutional right. The framers specifically created the 4th Amendment to protect Americans against unwarranted/unreasonable search and seizure. The NSA's program is a direct and flagrant violation of that.

I was delighted to see that you had posted in this thread, IndyLady, and couldn't wait to see what you had said. I was not disappointed. What you wrote gave me the answer to something that I had been puzzling over since I read ksinger's comment about how she cringes when hears someone say something is, "un-American". I usually do, too. But I had a strong feeling about this issue. When you wrote that the framers of the Constitution created the 4th Amendment against unwarranted/unreasonable search and seizure, I knew why I had had such a strong impulse to use that word. I had had a "visual" (in the parlance) of the framers of the Constitution when I wrote what I did. But the term I used was incorrect. I think ksinger is right. You nailed the issue. The problem is not that what is being done is un-American, it is that is unconstitutional. Thank you for your clarity.

Deb/AGBF

 

[ksinger]

Well, forget the NSA for just a sec. I'm actually more concerned with the potential of something like this being abused by a local Barney Fife. Enter Stingray...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586255/Police-phone-tracking-contracts-kept-secret.html

I knew there was a reason (other than stubborn and resentful of the cost of chasing the latest tech all the time) that I steadfastly refuse to get a smartphone, or even use texts on my old flip phone.

 

[AGBF]

Well, forget the NSA for just a sec. I'm actually more concerned with the potential of something like this being abused by a local Barney Fife. Enter Stingray...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586255/Police-phone-tracking-contracts-kept-secret.html

I knew there was a reason (other than stubborn and resentful of the cost of chasing the latest tech all the time) that I steadfastly refuse to get a smartphone, or even use texts on my old flip phone.

Apparently Stingray can track your old flip phone, too, if it uses cell towers. And I therefore believe that that is unconstitutional, too, as does the ACLU apparently.

I am in exactly the same position you are in, however. Or at least I believe that I am. I do not text at all. I do not have a smartphone, but a flip phone, and I use the flip phone very sparingly. I do not like cell phones and my cell phone costs more than my landline. I keep it in my car and use it for emergencies. I have no headset.

Deb/AGBF

 

[ksinger]

Well, forget the NSA for just a sec. I'm actually more concerned with the potential of something like this being abused by a local Barney Fife. Enter Stingray...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586255/Police-phone-tracking-contracts-kept-secret.html

I knew there was a reason (other than stubborn and resentful of the cost of chasing the latest tech all the time) that I steadfastly refuse to get a smartphone, or even use texts on my old flip phone.

Apparently Stingray can track your old flip phone, too, if it uses cell towers. And I therefore believe that that is unconstitutional, too, as does the ACLU apparently.

I am in exactly the same position you are in, however. Or at least I believe that I am. I do not text at all. I do not have a smartphone, but a flip phone, and I use the flip phone very sparingly. I do not like cell phones and my cell phone costs more than my landline. I keep it in my car and use it for emergencies. I have no headset.

Deb/AGBF

Well, I'm certainly never deluding myself that an older phone is proof against intrustion, but with no texts and only phone numbers without email addresses, and the phone being dead as often as not, I have a MUCH smaller footprint. There is very little for them to find...

 

[AGBF]

Well, forget the NSA for just a sec. I'm actually more concerned with the potential of something like this being abused by a local Barney Fife. Enter Stingray...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586255/Police-phone-tracking-contracts-kept-secret.html

I knew there was a reason (other than stubborn and resentful of the cost of chasing the latest tech all the time) that I steadfastly refuse to get a smartphone, or even use texts on my old flip phone.

Apparently Stingray can track your old flip phone, too, if it uses cell towers. And I therefore believe that that is unconstitutional, too, as does the ACLU apparently.

I am in exactly the same position you are in, however. Or at least I believe that I am. I do not text at all. I do not have a smartphone, but a flip phone, and I use the flip phone very sparingly. I do not like cell phones and my cell phone costs more than my landline. I keep it in my car and use it for emergencies. I have no headset.

Well, I'm certainly never deluding myself that an older phone is proof against intrustion, but with no texts and only phone numbers without email addresses, and the phone being dead as often as not, I have a MUCH smaller footprint. There is very little for them to find...

I am not sure it is "dead" unless you remove the battery. And I am not about to start doing that with my cell phone. I resent the government's intrusion, but I do not want to have to start dismantling my phone just to avoid tracking when it is not in use, especially since it will be able to be tracked when it is in use anyway...and that is when the government can get more information!!!

Deb

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,


This morning the news came over the TV stating Congress is passing a law that NSA will no longer be able to extract data from our phones. The Pres announced he is supporting the NSA will mine less data from phones.

If you are unaware, your landline phone as well as your other mobile phones has been subjected to the same data collection. There is no safe place.

During war-time constitutional rights have been suspended for the safety of all. This was the rational for the suspension of privacy rights. The Pfizer court is the substitute for the 4th amendment.

Sorry, if you don't complain- you don't get anywhere.


Annette

 

[Indylady]

I was delighted to see that you had posted in this thread, IndyLady, and couldn't wait to see what you had said. I was not disappointed. What you wrote gave me the answer to something that I had been puzzling over since I read ksinger's comment about how she cringes when hears someone say something is, "un-American". I usually do, too. But I had a strong feeling about this issue. When you wrote that the framers of the Constitution created the 4th Amendment against unwarranted/unreasonable search and seizure, I knew why I had had such a strong impulse to use that word. I had had a "visual" (in the parlance) of the framers of the Constitution when I wrote what I did. But the term I used was incorrect. I think ksinger is right. You nailed the issue. The problem is not that what is being done is un-American, it is that is unconstitutional. Thank you for your clarity.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, you are really too kind! Thank you for creating this thread; I am definitely enjoying this topic. This judge seems to get it right, though I haven't read the actual opinion in a while: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us/politics/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-data-program.html?_r=0

There are a couple major layers to the issue, in no particular order, and very summarized:

1. The PATRIOT Act, that creates a blanket exception for liberal information collection.

2. The phone company's records of your phone are business records that are not protected by the Fourth Amendment because of case law that suggests that, essentially, since you've willingly turned your information over to a third-party, you have forfeited your privacy rights to that information. However, this should be limited to the metadata--who you've called, when, and where, and should not include the actual 'contents' of the call, which shouldn't be considered a business record. Is that case law really constitutional when it comes to actually tracking a person's physical whereabouts through cell site data? I don't think so, but its a question that seems currently unsettled. As for the company--what happens if they're unwilling to turn over those records? Is a subpoena constitutional?

Private companies actually can and have collected large scale data about consumers. The Google Earth vehicle was actually fitted with a device to collect data packets from unsecure Wi-Fi networks (which basically meant that they were able to decode and read whatever someone was doing online at that moment in time), and came into some major legal trouble over it.