Should American's have private electronic communications?

[Fisher]

Well then it sounds like the best options are to a) be the representative or b) be the highest bidder. On a smaller scale, work with organizations that have the resources to influence a or b.

The only organization that will influence the highest bidder will be his/her shareholders.

 

[Paschendale]

I disagree...Google for example doesn't hide the fact that free browser and free gmail is paid for by data mining. People do make the choice everyday to exchange privacy for a good internet browser or good email service.

Now find one that doesn't do that? There is no choice. Just because that's the status quo doesn't make it alright.

The only organization that will influence the highest bidder will be his/her shareholders.

And you're alright treating politics like a business?

 

[Mr.Nick]

wow, 18/20 say yes yet this POS government gets support??

I suppose some people are willing to sacrifice liberty for free Obama phones (no pun intended)...

 

[PirateMk1]

Government does not get unfettered access and power with new tech. They are restricted and must necessarily stay so.

I agree in principle with you. However fact does get in the way. The backbone and infrastructure are owned by businesses that have a vested interested in your communications and a vested interest in cooperating with the government. This means in reality we MUST encrypt our communications if we use these facilities and wish to have privacy. Its annoying but the fact remains WE do not OWN the backbone therefore have little control except to do business with those providers that most reflect our views.

 

[Ikari]

I agree in principle with you. However fact does get in the way. The backbone and infrastructure are owned by businesses that have a vested interested in your communications and a vested interest in cooperating with the government. This means in reality we MUST encrypt our communications if we use these facilities and wish to have privacy. Its annoying but the fact remains WE do not OWN the backbone therefore have little control except to do business with those providers that most reflect our views.

It means that my data, while it can be used by the business I directly do business too, cannot be transmitted by the business nor illegally searched by the government. For systems which are free, it may be a bit trickier; but the problem is the level of aggregation of tech and surveillance is causing the datamining to become vastly more efficient and with devastating results to us all. Because of this, it must be restricted down such that the government is forced to obey the restrictions placed upon it.

 

[Smeagol]

In the post 9/11 world I think some reasonable middle ground on privacy can be found. Prior court approval? Destruction of data after target is deemed not to be a threat? Full disclosure to the target once the investigation is closed?

Btw: I'm am just as concerned if not more concerned over private corporations maintaining personal data on Americans than I am of the government doing so.

 

[Surtr]

Internet privacy is a laughable pipe dream. If you ever thought your information was safe from prying eyes, you're wrong. Even before the government got heavily involved, prying eyes were there.

 

[clownboy]

Internet privacy is a laughable pipe dream. If you ever thought your information was safe from prying eyes, you're wrong. Even before the government got heavily involved, prying eyes were there.

Agreed. I think the best we can do is to endeavor to avoid being low hanging fruit and to restrict how the govenment and business may use the information.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Internet privacy is a laughable pipe dream. If you ever thought your information was safe from prying eyes, you're wrong. Even before the government got heavily involved, prying eyes were there.

Yes, but there's a vast difference between the damage a lone hacker can do against a person and what can be accomplished by wholesale capture of all information in all sources compiled into databases on servers where that information can be processed for future use.

 

[Surtr]

Yes, but there's a vast difference between the damage a lone hacker can do against a person and what can be accomplished by wholesale capture of all information in all sources compiled into databases on servers where that information can be processed for future use.

Lone hackers aren't even a blip on the map. I'm talking about the banks, the Forbes 500s, The AT&T's and the Verizon's. The people who own and operate the massive server farms your data gets transferred through every day.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Lone hackers aren't even a blip on the map. I'm talking about the banks, the Forbes 500s, The AT&T's and the Verizon's. The people who own and operate the massive server farms your data gets transferred through every day.

Ya, exactly... I believe it was the 1996 telecommunications act that legislated this type of data gathering. It's at the point now where it's collecting all data from everyone, everywhere, all the time...

Well, people are starting to see the cage they are building around society...

 

[Surtr]

Ya, exactly... I believe it was the 1996 telecommunications act that legislated this type of data gathering. It's at the point now where it's collecting all data from everyone, everywhere, all the time...

Well, people are starting to see the cage they are building around society...

That cage was built a long time ago. Data gathering is just an addition to it.

 

[Coin]

I do not see it concerned to the government.
It is impossible to provide you such technology and keep secret everything you do with it.

Once i had a friend who worked for Vodafone on the IT department.
He used to help me many times by providing information regarding the "Unknown number" calls i received or the person's name of a specific number which was unknown for me.

If the govern will not do it, someone else will do it as long as you are proving information to many hands.

 

[Jango]

Yes of course. The government expects and anticipates private communications so they should treat people the way they want to be treated.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yes of course. The government expects and anticipates private communications so they should treat people the way they want to be treated.

Not in a tiered system it doesn't work like that... If you know the right people you can exempt yourself from "common" rules.

 

[disneydude]

I didn't agree with Government surveillance under Bush....and I don't agree with it under Obama.

 

[radcen]

Then they will do what they are already doing--letting the British who are not subject to US law do the spying and then give it to the US government. There is no way you are going to win this battle unless you disconnect from society, deal only in cash, and live in a tent in the woods.

...and there will probably be a tracking chip in the tent fabric.

 

[Fisher]

...and there will probably be a tracking chip in the tent fabric.

Nope they will just drone all the tents that stay in the same place too long to be safe :lol:

Attorney-Client, Doctor-Patient, and Clergy-Priest privileges are about the only ones that are somewhat sacrosanct. There is no explicit right to speak in privilege with other people in the Constitution.

 

[Cardinal]

Snowden’s e-mail provider is closing, cannot legally say why

Should there be electronic communications that are beyond the governments reach?

Yes. There is that expectation with regular postal mail, and there is no practical reason why we shouldn't have that expectation with any other form of communication. The government's position that there is no expectation of privacy with email and phone calls is entirely invented and self serving.

 

[Cardinal]

This scandal will be the deathblow to cloud services. That companies are not fighting it will cost them dearly in the long run.

The only thing I have in the cloud is my music, so the government is free to judge my crappy listening tastes.

 

[Fisher]

The only thing I have in the cloud is my music, so the government is free to judge my crappy listening tastes.

Well your unique appreciation for Hanson not withstanding, you are probably not one of the ones that they hope will make their enterprise profitable. They want the "virtual office" business so people like doctors and lawyers do all their stuff via a cloud interface like scheduling, records, client databases, file storage, billing, and receipts, inventory, and payroll/banking, all for a nice little monthly fee and per user fees for employees ( and they can hold your business completely hostage if you don't pay your bill and forgot to keep back ups). I looked at one of these one time. Besides the fact that I think a professional is opening themselves up to massive liability putting confidential information in a cloud, it was something like $2000 per year and then $70 bucks per month per user. I just don't see it being worth it.

 

[USViking]

No. If you want privacy in your correspondence then learn how to write, as in a f*cking letter.

Oh. Wait. Our wonderful educational system is throwing handwriting out the f*cking window.

Bet your ass the top-scoring East Asian educational systems aren't doing that!

Yeah, I know- it's cursive we here in the brilliant US are deep-sixing, but printing can't be far behind, can it?

And OP will you please, pretty please, pretty pretty please learn when and when not to use a goddam apostrophe!!!