Edward Snowden

[Greg]

Slightly, yes.

I've not seen one iota of evidence that suggests common individuals were targeted. The Gubmint, with all it's misgivings, doesn't give two shits about either of us. And there's just as much evidence (like none at all) that the IRS is doing the NSA's bidding.

I understand the concern and agree with the principles behind it. But now you're talking Alex Jones type stuff. Scandals get discovered. They always do. If individuals were all of a sudden targeted for audit simply based on political affiliation, we'd hear about just like in this case.

I have heard about noted conservatives getting audited for the first time in their lives the last few years. Audits that start with IRS agents at your front door. Anecdotal, sure. But still.

That scandals get discovered is not comforting, especially to those who suffer as the targets prior to discovery. Second, only the scandals that get discovered do we know got discovered. How many managed to go under the radar? How many do the media ignore for the Clown in Chief?

Paranoid? Maybe, but I think there is excellent reason to be given this administration and the size/scope of the federal government.

And one more note, maybe I am not big enough fish to fry but some people are and they deserve protection as well. And I know people that have the IRS show up at their house. It is a scary thing. They carry guns. They talk shit. They have way too much power. Even the lower yahoos.

[HoustonRaven]

Well, that's kind of my point. You or I are not *noted*.

Sure, prominent conservatives may have been targeted. There is evidence to suggest such.

But us common folk? I don't see it.

[Greg]

Well, that's kind of my point. You or I are not *noted*.

Sure, prominent conservatives may have been targeted. There is evidence to suggest such.

But us common folk? I don't see it.

And so we need to protect the records of all people to protect the big fish. I don't want my any of my information/activities/connections in the hands of the government unless there is probable cause, and that should be that given our Constitution. And this should extend to every American citizen.

[wickedsolo]

Looks like he is accepting asylum in Venezuela.

[JohnBKistler]

I've not seen one iota of evidence that suggests common individuals were targeted. The Gubmint, with all it's misgivings, doesn't give two shits about either of us.

Perhaps. But then doesn't this in a way make it worse? Often times, the "un-common" individuals are representatives (elected or not) of the voices and desires of many thousands, if not millions.

Take Martin Luther King, JR, for example. The FBI illegally recorded him having an affair with another woman and then used that information to try and get him to stop his civil rights activities. So not only were his rights (protecting him against warrant-less wiretaps) abused, but the information they gained was used to suppress the rights of millions to petition their government.

One last point, once the government has this information, there is no getting rid of it. You may think you are too small a fish to be spied upon, but their are many, many instances were government employees abused legally obtained information (tax returns, driver's license information, etc.) to just snoop around on their fellow citizens. Sure there are laws already against this sort of activity, but adding x10s, or 1000xs more info - obtained illegally - to the mix, just increases the opportunity that much more. And if you don't think an NSA analyst is looking at the text messages and Internet records of the pretty brunette that lives across the street, I have some land in Florida to sell you.

[HoustonRaven]

Perhaps. But then doesn't this in a way make it worse? Often times, the "un-common" individuals are representatives (elected or not) of the voices and desires of many thousands, if not millions.

Take Martin Luther King, JR, for example. The FBI illegally recorded him having an affair with another woman and then used that information to try and get him to stop his civil rights activities. So not only were his rights (protecting him against warrant-less wiretaps) abused, but the information they gained was used to suppress the rights of millions to petition their government.

One last point, once the government has this information, there is no getting rid of it. You may think you are too small a fish to be spied upon, but their are many, many instances were government employees abused legally obtained information (tax returns, driver's license information, etc.) to just snoop around on their fellow citizens. Sure there are laws already against this sort of activity, but adding x10s, or 1000xs more info - obtained illegally - to the mix, just increases the opportunity that much more. And if you don't think an NSA analyst is looking at the text messages and Internet records of the pretty brunette that lives across the street, I have some land in Florida to sell you.

Again, I said "common" individual. MLK was no common individual.

And Ill take your land. Just leave the tin foil hat on the couch. ;)

I've read numerous stories where politicians, public figures, etc do indeed have their personal information mined. Michael Steele is the perfect example of this. But show me evidence where Joe Schmo (i.e common individuals) had their data mined or exploited by the Gubmint.

I'm NO fan of the abuses by some in our Government but lets not get carried away with wild speculation and conjecture. It makes people sound like Alex Jones and nothing gets solved. Stick to the facts.

[JohnBKistler]

Again, I said "common" individual. MLK was no common individual.

I understand. My point was that by undermining his rights, you in effect abuse the rights of many (millions) of common individuals.

I've read numerous stories where politicians, public figures, etc do indeed have their personal information mined. Michael Steele is the perfect example of this. But show me evidence where Joe Schmo (i.e common individuals) had their data mined or exploited by the Gubmint.

Here's one of police abusing driver's license info, and it was their colleague. Think they would think twice about Joe Schmo, or in this case, Jane Schmo? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...atabase-abuse/ 104 officers in 18 different agencies across the state had improperly accessed her driver’s license record 425 times. I am sure this was the only person they had done this with...

Here is one with the fed's listening on private conversations between soldiers overseas and their wives/girlfriends: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclus...e#.Udxk1PnvtH2

And here's one more... http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-vie...r_cites_unaut/

That was after about 30 seconds of Google searching, I am sure there are more examples. The point is, by collecting this info, it greatly increases the opportunity for abuse, and therefore the chances that it will in fact happen. And let's face it, the temptation to pry into your neighbor's private affairs is a common human weakness. By adding internet records, text messages, e-mails, etc., you are just adding to the temptation.

I'm NO fan of the abuses by some in our Government but lets not get carried away with wild speculation and conjecture. It makes people sound like Alex Jones and nothing gets solved. Stick to the facts.

I don't know who Alex Jones is...but I suspect you are using him to somehow minimize my opinion. Whatever. The facts are that the US government has a long history of abusing personal data...both against "celebrity" or "public figures" and the average citizen. You can ignore them or interpret them as you see fit. But you cannot dismiss them. Sorry.

[HoustonRaven]

Ok, if you're going to change the definition of "Government" (to include ever person up to and including your local sheriffs department, dog catcher and meter maid) then yes, there are abuses to speak of against the individual.

Secondly, members of the military do not have a right to privacy. Every member of the armed services signs away their constitutional rights upon enlistment and during their length of service, are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They are government property and can have any and all of their communications monitored at any time, especially if they are serving in a hostile part of the world.

Your willingness to ignore the context of the thread doesn't prove anything. I think it's rather obvious we're all speaking about abuses of the Federal Government. Links about data security breaches does not prove what we're talking about here.

You started this by saying the NSA spying on the cute girl down the street and once challenged, you provide data security breaches at the local level or on a small scale that have nothing to do with NSA spying on said "cute girl".

[JohnBKistler]

Ok, if you're going to change the definition of "Government" (to include ever person up to and including your local sheriffs department, dog catcher and meter maid) then yes, there are abuses to speak of against the individual.

That is the point, or one of the points, once the data is collected (by whoever), it can then be accessible by whoever, and whatever political party is in power. You can limit the abuse by trying to plug all the holes in the dike, or you can respect the Constitution and require that the government agencies have a real and legitimate need to have this data and it is approved by a true judicial oversight.

Secondly, members of the military do not have a right to privacy. Every member of the armed services signs away their constitutional rights upon enlistment and during their length of service, are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They are government property and can have any and all of their communications monitored at any time, especially if they are serving in a hostile part of the world.

Again, you miss the point. Sure, they do not have a right to privacy. Do you think they have a right to have a bunch of people saying, "Hey, listen to how hot this ones getting." It proves that government officials will use the data they have acquired or to which they have access for non-security purposes.

Your willingness to ignore the context of the thread doesn't prove anything. I think it's rather obvious we're all speaking about abuses of the Federal Government. Links about data security breaches does not prove what we're talking about here.

I only replied to something you stated with facts and my interpretation of what those facts may mean. It that not allowed?

You started this by saying the NSA spying on the cute girl down the street and once challenged, you provide data security breaches at the local level or on a small scale that have nothing to do with NSA spying on said "cute girl".

Huh? Once the government has taken your private information - whether legally (as in the driver's license records) or illegally (as in the case of the NSA data mining), it opens up individuals to abuse...whether that is spying on your daughter's e-mail traffic, using it to blackmail political figures, or targeting Greg for audits, it really doesn't matter. And NSA staff have been fired for randomly surfing the data that they have acquired in the past. Your rights to be secure in your possessions (your private information) to to be protected against illegal searches have been violated.