National Security and Privacy

[DCJenn]

So, I was listening to the BBC News yesterday after the 2nd attack. They were speaking with a member of the House of Commons whose district includes the Oval station. They were asking heer what she thought about a British proposal to legalize wiretaps of phone calls of anyone who is suspicious. She was all for it.

Since we've got similar laws either on the books or being proposed, what do you all think is "too far" in violating people's privacy? What standards whould be met prior to wire taps or surveillance taking place? And what should happen if the government (local, state, national, international) isn't able to prove their case? As in, "we've been listening to your conversations for the past X # of months and oops, we're sorry, you're just a boring med spouse, and not a terrorist." and conversely, how long should this type of activity take place, and is it ethical to allow 'minor' terrorist or criminal activities in order to try and catch bigger fish?

I've been pondering these and other questions and I haven't come up with any clear or well-defined answers.

Jenn

[Vanquisher]

Well, I think the Patriot Act goes too far, for one. I think we should be allowed a certain modicum of privacy when it comes to librarys and such.

That said, I'm not sure exactly where the line should be, as I do think that it is necessary sometimes to invade privacies for the greater good, so to speak.

Per Farenheit 911, breastmilk should be off limits.

I think before the PA they had to have evidence for suspicion of illigal activities to get a wiretap. Now they can just be suspicious in genral and get permission for a wiretap.

I don't understand the discussion going on over the national ID system though. Any cop can ask to see your ID if you do something illigal. Heck, cashiers ask for it to accept checks or credit cards. Whether it is a state issued drivers license, a passport or a national ID all it does is show your picture and your legal name and where you reside. For the vast majority of us, the latter two are in the phone book. I guess they can use it to track your movement, but with more and more people using bank cards for all transactions, all they would need to do is access your bank info, which they can do just as easliy as wiretaps now.

I agree w/Tracy on the national ID card hub bub. Sometimes I feel like the ACLU takes things too far (I know, I know, a surprising statment from a card carrying liberal like me).

I also have a hard time determining where the line should be drawn as far as the Patriot Act. It's more of a concern over who makes these judgements than the "liberties" themselves. I mean, imagine if another 9/11 happened and we found out that the FBI had been surveiling them, but were waiting on paperwork to get the wiretap or the like...

That said - I think agents should have to show "cause" to request taps (or whatever other sneaky surveilance they have now), and that judges or whomever has to approve it should be on call schedules - like doctors. That way the urgency can be addressed while still protecting civil liberties.

Is that too simple?

[SueC]

I kind of waffle on the whole thing. I've thought about what Jenn said too--if another event happened and the powers that be didn't act on it fast enough due to legalities and paper work, lives would be lost unnecessarily.
On the one hand I think if I'm not doing anything wrong, then taking away some of my privacy for security purposes shouldn't be a big deal. On the other hand, I could see people abusing that privilege for personal or political gain.