Used to be, you could close your door and the outside world wouldn't bother you. You had privacy, such as it was, unless you did anything weird in your front window or doorway.
Then came the min-cam, not just the hand-held models but also the computer-mounted editions that hackers have now found a way to monitor, even against your will.
And there's the heat-sensors that big-city drug units are starting to use, driving down streets in search of heat signatures telling of grow-house operations. And the airline body scanners that show every nook and crevice on what was formerly your VERY private body.
There are scanners fully capable of monitoring your cell-phone calls, and every phone out there now has GPS tracking built in. If you call someone powerful enough, you can BET they have a fast way to find you.
So what to make of our privacy loss --- and the Tea Party silence on this fundamental issue? For this I turn (surprising even me) to ultra-liberal columnist Glenn Greenwald over at Salon, as interpreted by Nat Hentoff (a guy who started off as ultra-liberal in the Village Voice), who is sounding more conservative with every passing year.....
QuoteIf Obama's lockstep Democrats are still in control next year, Glenn Greenwald continues, "Internet services could legally exist only insofar as there would be no such thing as truly private communications; all must contain a 'back door' to enable government officials to eavesdrop."
Would this still be America?
There's more to Obama's euthanizing of the Fourth Amendment in Charlie Savage's reporting: "Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services (ALL services) that enable communications – including encrypted e-mail transmitters like Blackberry, social-networking sites like Facebook, and software that allows direct 'peer-to-peer' messaging like Skype – to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap. The mandate would include (the government) being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."
As Sen. Frank Church said long ago when he was the first to discover the omnipresent spying on us of the National Security Agency (NSA), eventually, "no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. ... There would be no place to hide."
Not at all surprisingly, President Obama has extended the reach – and just about total lack of accountability – of the NSA.
But if the Republicans take control of Congress after the midterm elections – and then under a new Republican president in 2012 – is there any certainty that we may begin to be under the protection of the Fourth Amendment again?
Insofar as the tea partiers will continue to be an influence on the Republicans – having already been instrumental this year in re-electing some – I have not, as I've reported, seen much concern among them about our vanishing privacy (though I admire the tea partiers declared devotion to the Constitution).
As of this writing, I have no idea who will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, but I'm not aware that any of the potential leading Republican candidates are impassioned about the Fourth Amendment.
Even if she's not a candidate, the perennial newsmaker Sarah Palin will be an influence on the 2012 elections. She probably doesn't remember, but I was the first national columnist to recommend to John McCain that she be on his ticket, having read of her independence of party orthodoxy in Michael Barone's invaluable "Almanac of American Politics," as governor of Alaska. Anyway, I strongly recommend to firebrand Palin what Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in his dissent in the first Supreme Court wiretapping case, Olmstead vs. United States (1928):
"Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, with means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. ... The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage (on American citizens) is not likely to stop with wiretapping."
Was he ever right!
"Ways may some day be developed," Brandeis continued, "by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court." (He didn't foresee the Patriot Act's giving the FBI permission to sneak into our homes when we aren't there and photograph those papers.)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211885 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211885)
The left wants privacy gone. Obama is dangerous to every American for leading that charge.
PUBS and conservatives have a saying, ( or use to ) expressed on The Loose Nut Forum and other forums, so many, many times; "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
'Twas said so many times, it became nauseating. How a different 'PROTECTOR' of the Constitution changes the tone, eh?
Disclaimer; not directed at you, Quill, but PUBS and conservatives in general.
Quote from: Shooterman on October 06, 2010, 08:20:41 AM
PUBS and conservatives have a saying, ( or use to ) expressed on The Loose Nut Forum and other forums, so many, many times; "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
'Twas said so many times, it became nauseating. How a different 'PROTECTOR' of the Constitution changes the tone, eh?
Bout sides need a wake up call around the Constitution.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldofstock.com%2Fslides%2FCON1210.jpg&hash=ab72c40ae413633f780ad0c55d4e2b7aef718fd4)
Disclaimer; not directed at you, Quill, but PUBS and conservatives in general.
Quote from: Shooterman on October 06, 2010, 09:22:25 AM
Sorry, Walks, but ???
Hmmmmm now how do I delete that. :o
Quote from: Shooterman on October 06, 2010, 08:20:41 AM
PUBS and conservatives have a saying, ( or use to ) expressed on The Loose Nut Forum and other forums, so many, many times; "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
'Twas said so many times, it became nauseating. How a different 'PROTECTOR' of the Constitution changes the tone, eh?
Disclaimer; not directed at you, Quill, but PUBS and conservatives in general.
It was the liberals who always bitched about the Patriot Act and "big brother" and "warrantless phone-tapping" and all the other "right to privacy" issues. And it was the conservatives who understood that unless you were a CRIMINAL, you had nothing to worry about. Now that Bush is gone and Obama is in charge, the tables are turned, and opposite positions have been taken by the liberals and conservatives.
It's all just a bunch of sickening, political hypocrisy.
Quote from: AmericanFlyer on October 06, 2010, 03:54:22 PM
It was the liberals who always bitched about the Patriot Act and "big brother" and "warrantless phone-tapping" and all the other "right to privacy" issues. And it was the conservatives who understood that unless you were a CRIMINAL, you had nothing to worry about. Now that Bush is gone and Obama is in charge, the tables are turned, and opposite positions have been taken by the liberals and conservatives.
It's all just a bunch of sickening, political hypocrisy.
There were a few of us that use to warn that a liberal may get hold of the Patriot Act. Sauce for the Goose and all that crap, ya know.
You still need probable cause to utilize the device.
Billy
Everything we know about Obama points to the fact that he's a socialist. Why is there even any doubt?
I love how you progressives continue try to spin it, but his background, and his policies and his crowd of Commie Cronies all point in that direction, and he admires the socialist's and Marxist dictators, and supports their policies and his agenda functionally socialist.
Is that so hard to understand?
Quote from: Conservative16 on October 07, 2010, 07:19:28 AM
Everything we know about Obama points to the fact that he's a socialist. Why is there even any doubt?
I love how you progressives continue try to spin it, but his background, and his policies and his crowd of Commie Cronies all point in that direction, and he admires the socialist's and Marxist dictators, and supports their policies and his agenda functionally socialist.
Is that so hard to understand?
Conservative16, you're speaking to the choir in here, for the most part. I believe in intellectual honesty. Some of the same people who were so overwhelmingly in favor of the Patriot Act are now the same people who are criticizing the Obama administration for "spying" on people. You can't have it both ways. That's the game that the liberals play, not intellectually honest conservatives.
I happen to be in favor of the "spirit" of the Patriot Act, although as with ANY governmental "intervention" into our lives, there is always the specter of abuse and fraud and all things "unsavory".
If any of you believe that there aren't governmental, and non-governmental, entities who are monitoring the internet 24/7/365, and have been doing so for MANY years, you are very naive.
Getting back to Vladimir Obama, OF COURSE he is a dangerous concoction of communism, Marxism, and socialism. I would be happy to share what I hope happens to him and everybody in the federal government who shares his "vision", but I would run the risk of getting arrested.
Quote from: Conservative16 on October 07, 2010, 07:19:28 AM
Everything we know about Obama points to the fact that he's a socialist. Why is there even any doubt?
I love how you progressives continue try to spin it, but his background, and his policies and his crowd of Commie Cronies all point in that direction, and he admires the socialist's and Marxist dictators, and supports their policies and his agenda functionally socialist.
Is that so hard to understand?
Just who are the 'you progressives here. Oh, we may have one oor two that we've known for years, but 'you progressives' seems to be a wet dream of yours.
Shooterman, here is the fault in your strawman argument. Many conservatives like myself are just fine. I still don't feel I have anything to worry about. Clean living does have it's benefits. So stop ASSuming you know what all Republicans think because you very clearly don't know.
Quote from: Conservative16 on October 07, 2010, 07:19:28 AM
Everything we know about Obama points to the fact that he's a socialist. Why is there even any doubt?
I love how you progressives continue try to spin it, but his background, and his policies and his crowd of Commie Cronies all point in that direction, and he admires the socialist's and Marxist dictators, and supports their policies and his agenda functionally socialist.
Is that so hard to understand?
Yes or no. Was this post directed at me, who started the thread? You didn't quote anyone, so it's nice to know who "you socialists" refers to.
Quote from: Dan on October 08, 2010, 05:45:10 AM
Shooterman, here is the fault in your strawman argument. Many conservatives like myself are just fine. I still don't feel I have anything to worry about. Clean living does have it's benefits. So stop ASSuming you know what all Republicans think because you very clearly don't know.
I presume you have a reason ( more importantly, are in answer to a post ) that has started this simple little nonsensical tirade. Would you care to share it with us poor mortals that have not the ability to read minds.
I, also, really hope, Daniel, me boy, that you are, of necessity, not worried about me giving a good crap about what you say.
Quote from: Shooterman on October 07, 2010, 10:09:33 AM
Just who are the 'you progressives here. Oh, we may have one oor two that we've known for years, but 'you progressives' seems to be a wet dream of yours.
I was going to post this last night when I saw it, but decided to hold off and see if I still felt as strongly the following day.
It occurred to me that this was a copy/paste job from a prepared script, and he simply forgot who he was talking to. Old Socialist and JDD are the only two here who would accept the progressive label (to my knowledge).
If on the other hand he DID know his audience and STILL said that about the rest of us, he might wish to expand on that line of thought. I don't don't have to race to the right. I'm there already.
Quote from: Shooterman on October 08, 2010, 05:56:48 AM
I presume you have a reason ( more importantly, are in answer to a post ) that has started this simple little nonsensical tirade. Would you care to share it with us poor mortals that have not the ability to read minds.
I, also, really hope, Daniel, me boy, that you are, of necessity, not worried about me giving a good crap about what you say.
Tirade? Really? You are the one who bemoans the bad Republicans every chance you get while simultaneously thumping your chest and crowing about how you are always right. And you think I'm the one having a tirade? Wow!
You made a generalization about the "Pubs and Conservatives" on the LNF Forum and I'm pointing out that your generalization is just plain wrong. Stop putting words into my mouth because you obviously don't have a clue as to what I think. But when you condemn me for things I never said then of course I am going to take a minute to set the record straight.
Shooterman, first of all the fact that you chose to answer my post sorta undercuts your assertion that you don't give a crap. Second, when you talk about the "Pubs and Conservatives" on the LNF Forum, then you are talking about me too. And when you make generalizations about us that don't fit me while simultaneously casting me in a negative light as a hypocrite, then I have every damned right in the world to answer.
Many Republicans are just fine. We are no more worried than we were when Bush was in charge on the issue of privacy. So it's hard to cast all of us as hypocrites and political opportunists. At least if you are trying to be honest about the issue.
Quote from: Shooterman on October 06, 2010, 04:14:46 PM
There were a few of us that use to warn that a liberal may get hold of the Patriot Act. Sauce for the Goose and all that crap, ya know.
Shooterman is always right and everyone else is always wrong. Doesn't matter the time, place or subject. Just remember Shooterman is always right and everyone else is always wrong. All hail Shooterman the infallible.
Quote from: Dan on October 08, 2010, 06:14:28 AM
Tirade? Really? You are the one who bemoans the bad Republicans every chance you get while simultaneously thumping your chest and crowing about how you are always right. And you think I'm the one having a tirade? Wow!
You made a generalization about the "Pubs and Conservatives" on the LNF Forum and I'm pointing out that your generalization is just plain wrong. Stop putting words into my mouth because you obviously don't have a clue as to what I think. But when you condemn me for things I never said then of course I am going to take a minute to set the record straight.
Silly me! Here I thought you were bitching about something I said in this thread. Holy moly! Now it's watch your back on other forums, as well. A quote of what I said, would have been nice, but maybe we are supposed to read your mind.
SNICKER!
Quote from: quiller on October 08, 2010, 05:51:46 AM
Yes or no. Was this post directed at me, who started the thread? You didn't quote anyone, so it's nice to know who "you socialists" refers to.
He's new to the forum and doesn't know anyone yet. My guess is that he saw Shooterman and AF attacking conservatives and just instinctively assumed they were liberals. Not sure, but I could easily see that sort of misunderstanding. ;)
Quote from: Shooterman on October 08, 2010, 06:21:51 AM
Silly me! Here I thought you were bitching about something I said in this thread. Holy moly! Now it's watch your back on other forums, as well. A quote of what I said, would have been nice, but maybe we are supposed to read your mind. SNICKER!
No numbnuts, I am talking about where in this thread you referenced the "Pubs and Conservatives on the Loose Nuts Forum".
Within this thread you were describing comments made by a group of people who also post on this forum who include me. You made a generalization about us that does not fit me and I took exception to it.
Understand now?
Quote from: Shooterman on October 06, 2010, 08:20:41 AM
PUBS and conservatives have a saying, ( or use to ) expressed on The Loose Nut Forum and other forums, so many, many times; "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
'Twas said so many times, it became nauseating. How a different 'PROTECTOR' of the Constitution changes the tone, eh?
Disclaimer; not directed at you, Quill, but PUBS and conservatives in general.
This is the post where I took exception Shooterman. PUBS and conservatives in general. Stop acting like you are one of Dione Warwick's psychic friends because you obviously don't have a freakin clue what we are talking about. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Dan on October 08, 2010, 06:28:19 AM
No numbnuts, I am talking about where in this thread you referenced the "Pubs and Conservatives on the Loose Nuts Forum".
Within this thread you were describing comments made by a group of people who also post on this forum who include me. You made a generalization about us that does not fit me and I took exception to it.
Understand now?
I understand you probably haven't taken your Meds for several days now, Dan.
My original post;
PUBS and conservatives have a saying, ( or use to ) expressed on The Loose Nut Forum and other forums, so many, many times; "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." I don't believe I limited my remarks to LNF, or included
ALL PUBS and conservatives. I have to wonder about your sanity, Dan.
Shooter has referred to LNF as the Loose Nuts Forum for a long time---and at LNF. It's a catch-phrase, Dan. Relax.
Quote from: Shooterman on October 08, 2010, 06:39:46 AM
I understand you probably haven't taken your Meds for several days now, Dan.
My original post; PUBS and conservatives have a saying, ( or use to ) expressed on The Loose Nut Forum and other forums, so many, many times; "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
I don't believe I limited my remarks to LNF, or included ALL PUBS and conservatives. I have to wonder about your sanity, Dan.
I've tried to be nice because I know dementia is common in people of your age Shooterman, but you made a gross generalization and then attacked it. Wether or not you included conservatives from other sites is meaningless. You made a blanket generalization about people that included me and you were dead wrong.
Quote from: quiller on October 08, 2010, 06:46:32 AM
Shooter has referred to LNF as the Loose Nuts Forum for a long time---and at LNF. It's a catch-phrase, Dan. Relax.
The LNF reference was a side issue. I don't care one way or the other. I was just trying to identify the generalization that included me.
Shooterman I understand you don't like Republicans. No I really do get it. I have read hundreds of your posts and you take great pleasure in telling us how we are wrong and you are right and nothing will ever get better. I get it.
But if you are going to make blanket generalizations about Conservatives and/or Republicans that are wrong and then condemn us for things we never said, on a forum titled "Conservative Political Forum", then don't get your panties in a bunch because we take exception to your inaccurate, insulting and self congratulatory posts. ::)
I'm included too, by that definition. Gee. And I still speak to him, in spite of all that!
ADDED: ;)
Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on October 06, 2010, 07:32:09 PM
You still need probable cause to utilize the device.
Billy
Exactly Billy, and they better have crossed their (T's) and dotted their (I's) before they take it to court, or it will be seen as illegal evidence and the court will not only throw the evidence out, but throw the book at the prosecutor for invasion of privacy.
Some seem to think it's Orwells 1984.
Sheesh, I wonder if they look under the bed for a Fed, before going to sleep? :o
Quote from: quiller on October 08, 2010, 06:55:21 AM
I'm included too, by that definition. Gee. And I still speak to him, in spite of all that!
First, you aren't included. The original post by shooterman is post #2 in this thread and he specifically excludes you by name.
Second, I still speak to shooterman. How can I tell him he is wrong without speaking to him? :P
Quote from: Shooterman on October 06, 2010, 08:20:41 AM
PUBS and conservatives have a saying, ( or use to ) expressed on The Loose Nut Forum and other forums, so many, many times; "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
'Twas said so many times, it became nauseating. How a different 'PROTECTOR' of the Constitution changes the tone, eh?
Disclaimer; not directed at you, Quill, but PUBS and conservatives in general.
I've come around from the days at LNF where I did say that very thing. The Electronic Freedom Frontier and numerous other privacy advocates reshaped my thinking.
Quote from: quiller on October 08, 2010, 07:11:21 AM
I've come around from the days at LNF where I did say that very thing. The Electronic Freedom Frontier and numerous other privacy advocates reshaped my thinking.
My complaint with Shooterman was the disclaimer line where he talks about us in general. That's putting words in our mouths and I take exception to that when it mischaracterizes my position. ;)
Quote from: Dan on October 08, 2010, 07:15:36 AM
My complaint with Shooterman was the disclaimer line where he talks about us in general. That's putting words in our mouths and I take exception to that when it mischaracterizes my position. ;)
Then start a new thread and add the posts referring to that argument, and see where the discussion leads. Here, it's about privacy issues. There really is a way to hack in to see whatever your computer camera is seeing. The government does not need a search warrant to come on to your property and place an electronic tracking device in or on your car. Obama is now asking banks to report ALL financial amounts sent overseas. The list of governmental encroachment continues at break-neck pace.
If you have nothing to worry about, then you're the one NOT banking on-line, or filing tax returns on-line. Best of luck to anyone else.
How am I in danger if I pay my electric bill and water bill online? I don't have overseas accounts where I am attempting to hide income or assets. As for my tax returns, the government already has copies if those too.
Quiller, you've always been polite to me. And I am not trying to be discourteous to you. I just don't get your point.
Quote from: quiller on October 08, 2010, 07:21:57 AM
Then start a new thread and add the posts referring to that argument, and see where the discussion leads. Here, it's about privacy issues. There really is a way to hack in to see whatever your computer camera is seeing. The government does not need a search warrant to come on to your property and place an electronic tracking device in or on your car. Obama is now asking banks to report ALL financial amounts sent overseas. The list of governmental encroachment continues at break-neck pace.
If you have nothing to worry about, then you're the one NOT banking on-line, or filing tax returns on-line. Best of luck to anyone else.
This was all into play under 'Dubya, Obama is just embracing and expanding it.
Quote from: Dan on October 08, 2010, 02:42:24 PM
How am I in danger if I pay my electric bill and water bill online? I don't have overseas accounts where I am attempting to hide income or assets. As for my tax returns, the government already has copies if those too.
Quiller, you've always been polite to me. And I am not trying to be discourteous to you. I just don't get your point.
Keeping a carbon from the tri-fold form-set used to run credit-cards can yield the number of your account just as fast as reading the actual form it comes with. Old-school fraud, before the 'Net.
On-line, they hack into credit-card company accounts and in many cases go after small amounts under $20, figuring many people won't challenge the amount on their monthly bill. (Surprisingly the scammers are right: people don't read their bills as closely as you'd expect.)
For more about privacy issues, see more here.... http://www.eff.org/ (http://www.eff.org/)
So is the concern identity theft from criminals or giving access to your information to the government?
Quite frankly the legitimate businesses are also intrusive in their behavior. Some allow smart ads to look at the websites you've visited and tailor the ads accordingly. But it's not like I go to websites dedicated to hairless Filapino men so once again I really am not that concerned for myself personally.
Quote from: quiller on October 06, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Used to be, you could close your door and the outside world wouldn't bother you. You had privacy, such as it was, unless you did anything weird in your front window or doorway.
Then came the min-cam, not just the hand-held models but also the computer-mounted editions that hackers have now found a way to monitor, even against your will.
And there's the heat-sensors that big-city drug units are starting to use, driving down streets in search of heat signatures telling of grow-house operations. And the airline body scanners that show every nook and crevice on what was formerly your VERY private body.
There are scanners fully capable of monitoring your cell-phone calls, and every phone out there now has GPS tracking built in. If you call someone powerful enough, you can BET they have a fast way to find you.
So what to make of our privacy loss --- and the Tea Party silence on this fundamental issue? For this I turn (surprising even me) to ultra-liberal columnist Glenn Greenwald over at Salon, as interpreted by Nat Hentoff (a guy who started off as ultra-liberal in the Village Voice), who is sounding more conservative with every passing year.....
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211885 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211885)
The left wants privacy gone. Obama is dangerous to every American for leading that charge.
And of course we hear nothing but crickets from the left. My how things change.
Quote from: Dan on October 08, 2010, 06:25:22 AM
He's new to the forum and doesn't know anyone yet. My guess is that he saw Shooterman and AF attacking conservatives and just instinctively assumed they were liberals. Not sure, but I could easily see that sort of misunderstanding. ;)
Now c'mon Dan, I was not "attacking" conservatives. I was simply insisting that conservatives be intellectually honest about this whole "big brother is watching you" thing. I'm with you. I have no problem with the Patriot Act, and my position has not changed, no matter WHO is the President. But, as I stated earlier, ANY law that COULD be abused by the federal government probably WILL be abused, especially by the anti-Constitutionalist liberals.
AF, you used a generalization to call us hypocrites. A qualification would have been more polite since the generalization mischaracterized the position of many Republicans like myself. I didn't take exception to what you said because I honestly Did not think you meant any harm, but I wish you would qualify your statements in the future when they mischaracterize my position.