• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should American's have private electronic communications?

Should we, American's, have private electronic communications?

  • Yes of course

    Votes: 26 83.9%
  • No we need protection from bad people

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 3 9.7%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
No....I think people need to realize that there is no privacy on the internet period.

I realize that just fine, but I don't accept the government having the authority to read or look at anything being said.
 
The idea that we don't expect privacy merely because we have been denied it in the past is no excuse at all. Unless they have a warrant and probable cause, the government should not have more access to my private communications than I have access to the private e-mails of other DP users.

Just because someone can hack my information doesn't mean that the government should be legally allowed to do it.
 
This scandal will be the deathblow to cloud services. That companies are not fighting it will cost them dearly in the long run.
 

There already are. That's why the government is using the net they are. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for me they have information OVERLOAD. Too much of a good thing, can turn out not to be so good. They have to sort the fish they catch and they have so many, its a cast iron bitch to do. Not to mention time consuming. Hilarious as hell. They HAVE the info they just cant FIND the info. Well at least in a timely manner. Oppositional governments get around the NSA all the time, just like our government does as well.
 
I HAVE private communications with those I require to have such type communication. The government could intercept the communications they still have to figure out if its a message and then if they think it is decrypt it. I wish em luck. They will need it. I am very paranoid when it comes to communications security. I don't even trust off the shelf encryption programs. I use my own programs. Paranoia pays dividends when it comes to security.
 
The idea that we don't expect privacy merely because we have been denied it in the past is no excuse at all. Unless they have a warrant and probable cause, the government should not have more access to my private communications than I have access to the private e-mails of other DP users.

Just because someone can hack my information doesn't mean that the government should be legally allowed to do it.

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.
 
There already are. That's why the government is using the net they are. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for me they have information OVERLOAD. Too much of a good thing, can turn out not to be so good. They have to sort the fish they catch and they have so many, its a cast iron bitch to do. Not to mention time consuming. Hilarious as hell. They HAVE the info they just cant FIND the info. Well at least in a timely manner. Oppositional governments get around the NSA all the time, just like our government does as well.


They should use Commodore 64's. I hear those were revolutionary.
 
Yes there should be private use of the internet. While there are some reasonable expectations of reduced privacy, it does not authorize the government to engage in large, aggregate data mining programs and data basing; nor does it mean that government gets carte blanche powers of search.

There's always things like facebook and such where people post alot of high visibility information. But even there it should be restricted. And certainly communications such as e-mail should be treated as an individual's papers and thus protected from unreasonable search and seizure.
 
The idea that we don't expect privacy merely because we have been denied it in the past is no excuse at all. Unless they have a warrant and probable cause, the government should not have more access to my private communications than I have access to the private e-mails of other DP users.

Just because someone can hack my information doesn't mean that the government should be legally allowed to do it.

People already have access to your emails/browsing history/GPS co-ordinates on your phone. You data is mined daily for profit. If we already accept that I'm not sure why the mining and searching for specific words or code used by terrorists is something we can't accept.

I agree with you partially..for one emails should never be read unless there is some flag. Second of all that information shouldn't be used against you if it was incriminating.

I think there needs to be a realization...anything on the internet is used by some entity. There's no such thing as privacy. We accept that every day. I can see why the government doing it is troublesome but do you think there's no cause? That of all the methods of combating people doing bad things that's a cost effective method that doesn't really put a lot of people in harms way? Granted...if someone with devious intentions uses that collection they could do very bad things but you need to have protections in place.
 
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.

Of, you know, participate in the political process.
 
They should use Commodore 64's. I hear those were revolutionary.

They got that data storage center in Utah, which you can bet has got some serious horsepower behind it. Problem is depending on the encryption method and number of encrypted messages and trying to even identify encrypted messages is a VERY horsepower intensive task. Example using pictures to hide messages, there are several ways to do that and how many pictures are put on the internet everyday? That's just one example.

Side note I had a friend who had one. They were the cool computer when I was growing up because they had the good selection of games. Lots of people learned to program on them. I had a Tandy 1000ex with a 8088 Intel processor. It cost 1500 at the time. Now days everybody's watch has more computing power.
 
Yes there should be private use of the internet. While there are some reasonable expectations of reduced privacy, it does not authorize the government to engage in large, aggregate data mining programs and data basing; nor does it mean that government gets carte blanche powers of search.

There's always things like facebook and such where people post alot of high visibility information. But even there it should be restricted. And certainly communications such as e-mail should be treated as an individual's papers and thus protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

Whether we like it or not the internet is a public area. If we don't want people seeing what we are saying to others then encrypt our messages with heavy duty encryption. Otherwise the government WILL read your mail.
 
Of, you know, participate in the political process.

Why? If you allow secure communications the government cannot access then the political process will be your representative sitting on his super secure phone line auctioning off his vote to the highest bidder and there is no way you are going to catch him doing it.
 
Whether we like it or not the internet is a public area. If we don't want people seeing what we are saying to others then encrypt our messages with heavy duty encryption. Otherwise the government WILL read your mail.

Government does not get unfettered access and power with new tech. They are restricted and must necessarily stay so.
 
They got that data storage center in Utah, which you can bet has got some serious horsepower behind it. Problem is depending on the encryption method and number of encrypted messages and trying to even identify encrypted messages is a VERY horsepower intensive task. Example using pictures to hide messages, there are several ways to do that and how many pictures are put on the internet everyday? That's just one example.

Side note I had a friend who had one. They were the cool computer when I was growing up because they had the good selection of games. Lots of people learned to program on them. I had a Tandy 1000ex with a 8088 Intel processor. It cost 1500 at the time. Now days everybody's watch has more computing power.

Well surely. Just look at how much new crap we give them just here at DP to sort through every day :2razz:

It is probably more an issue of coming up with workable algorithms that can sort the wide variety of garbage in.
 
People already have access to your emails/browsing history/GPS co-ordinates on your phone. You data is mined daily for profit. If we already accept that I'm not sure why the mining and searching for specific words or code used by terrorists is something we can't accept.

I agree with you partially..for one emails should never be read unless there is some flag. Second of all that information shouldn't be used against you if it was incriminating.

I think there needs to be a realization...anything on the internet is used by some entity. There's no such thing as privacy. We accept that every day. I can see why the government doing it is troublesome but do you think there's no cause? That of all the methods of combating people doing bad things that's a cost effective method that doesn't really put a lot of people in harms way? Granted...if someone with devious intentions uses that collection they could do very bad things but you need to have protections in place.

We do not accept that. We just never had a choice.
 
It is probably more an issue of coming up with workable algorithms that can sort the wide variety of garbage in.

Which is why the NSA is such a large employer of PhD mathematicians.
 
We do not accept that. We just never had a choice.

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.
 
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.

I'd rather pay for it. But in the end there is some expected level of private industry performing direct marketing. I can accept this too, on a limited basis. For instance, Amazon. I do buy a lot from there, they keep sending me e-mails about other stuff I want to buy. Damned good at their direct marketing. If I buy something from Amazon, I can agree to the fact that they'll keep record of transaction and they themselves can use that record to design direct advertising strategies. OK, fine, between me and Amazon. Where I would draw the line is Amazon giving that information away. That's my information, my effects and papers. Amazon directly facilitated it so they get use of the data; but it cannot be sold or given away without warrant. That's the line that I think would be proper in this case.

And in none of it is it allowed that government in general monitor my internet usage or buying history. They aren't even direct marketing to me, so **** them.
 
All I see from this thread is "Baaaaaaaa"
 
Why? If you allow secure communications the government cannot access then the political process will be your representative sitting on his super secure phone line auctioning off his vote to the highest bidder and there is no way you are going to catch him doing it.

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.

Actually we do have a choice; try to replace any congress critters that voted for allowing these snooping laws.

You need better alternatives to replace them with. Those Tea Party jokers certainly weren't better, and anybody who really fights for personal liberties is loudly denounced, often by your political factions.
 
Back
Top Bottom