Bob

Just as long as we can reclaim taxes spent for personal back up of data...would save on cloud storage fees

tonrob

I will happily surrender cheap petrol in return for not getting blown up.

My liberty, not so much.

paddingtongreen

I thought my OP was clear enough, we had a big public fuss about it before. One or two have stepped up and said, in addition, we knew about this before. Whoop-de-doo

There are so many windows of opportunity for terrorist activities that it is impossible to close more than a small fraction. The victory for Osama continues, we are one hell of a lot poorer than we would have been if we hadn't gone charging off to war without a plan, "We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", we continue waste our wealth closing the ones they've already tried instead of the ones they haven't. Like the generals, they always fight the last war.

To those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security I say, Each time another terrorist makes a splash, the NSA et al will want to curtail your freedom "Just a little bit" until these little bits amount to a big bit.

RoadWarriorFromLP

In addition to that, the Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that no warrant was needed for law enforcement to access phone records.

As the case is written, it doesn't protect internet usage, either. The essence of the argument is that you obviously aren't keeping your usage a secret from your phone company when you dial a number, therefore you have no expectation of privacy and no Fourth Amendment protection.

We've had three Republican presidents since then. If someone wanted to strengthen privacy laws, then they've had 34 years to do it.

Sally Redux

It's all making money for somebody - that's why the West won the Cold War.

Pulaski

I understand the point, and my natural inclination is to think that the government should stay the he11 out of my business. However when I stop and think about what is important to me, and what would really impact the lives of my family and me, I really am prepared to give up a lot of my notional freedoms if the government security agencies can prevent more terrorist attacks. And I guess a lot of other people would too. .... Honestly, would it really matter if the government was listening to your phone calls? I don't think so.

Michael

You have to wonder if it is because he is president while "black" or just president while "democrat". The right was also very ruthless with Clinton but gave Bush and Cheney a pass.

Before the right even knew that there was anyone dead at Benghazi, they were already blaming the white house and since have had almost one year of investigations. Now Issa is milking the IRS scandal for all it's worth with unproven allegations and innuendos.

The democrats don't appear to be as ruthless. When the democrats took control of the house, you would have thought that there would have been endless hearings about why Bush and Cheney went to war in Iraq (much more serious than Benghazi or the IRS scandal with much more suspected dubious involvement by the white house) but not one single hearing was ever held. Instead the democrats decided to make peace and in return they were stabbed in the back tenfold.

zargof

That's great. Just curious, what are you prepared to give up to prevent gun violence? Or for that matter road deaths? A simple look at the statistics would show they are things that you should fear more.

civilservant

Let's flip the question around. Are you prepared to sacrifice your entire family in a terrorist incident that could have been prevented by a small of infraction of that terrorists liberties?

I have nothing to hide, therefore am prepared to give some of my 'privacy' away. Let's face it, wherever we go and whatever we do metrics are being collected about us anyway. Buying habits on credit cards, surfing habits by Google etc - all are being monitored every second of every day. So why are people so up in arms when it's the Government trying to protect you, but seem to be perfectly content when it's someone out to make a profit from you?

At the end of the day, which of these is working for you?

sir_eccles

But you can't guarantee that safety 100% can you. In fact prism was in use during the Boston bombing yet it was not prevented.

civilservant

Of course not, and things will continue to happen. 1 or 2 madmen that share their plans with nobody will have a high percentage of success simply because these monitoring systems look at communications.

Personally however, I am of the opinion that plots can and have been prevented by the methods that have been used.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Patriot Act, torture or extraordinary rendition, but on a personal level the surrender of my right not to have my web history recorded is not something that I rail against.

Michael

From my understanding, the NSA is only collecting phone numbers that people are calling and not the recorded conversations and when they need to data mine a person's records, they need a court order. It doesn't seem to be all that useful except when they already suspect someone and then can get a court ordered wiretap or if they need to trace phone numbers called when something like the Boston bombing occurs.

I was much more concerned about the Justice department during the Bush administration holding suspected terrorists (many were not) in jail without charges and due process authorized by the Patriot Act.

Pulaski

The right to enter malls, offices, schools, hospitals, theaters, large stores, post offices without going through airport style security. I'll through whatever background check you have in mind, psychological tests, and get you notarized references from relatives, coworkers, neighbors and friends. I'll agree to a periodic visit from a sheriff or other official to inspect my guns, ammunition and storage facilities (which isn't going to amount to much because I have only one single shot 20 gauge shotgun! I'll give up the right to medical privacy to the extent that it affects my suitability to own a gun (doctors should be required to report those who have mental issues. I'll concede to being prosecuted and/or sued if I allow my gun to fall into the hands of a child, criminal or mental incompetent, or fail to report it stolen promptly. More than that, I'll give up the right to own a pistol entirely when someone comes up with a way to disarm 100.0% of other individuals present in the US of their pistols.
I'll agree to random breatholyzer check points, to being breath-tested after every accident, to being ticketed for not using my indicators, for running red lights, to meaningful i.e. total (no driving to work, or church, NO driving at all) bans for drunk drivers. I'll agree to the driving age bring raised to 18 (or higher) even if that turns me into dad's taxi service, I'll agree to testing my driving skills and reflexes at 65, 70, and 75, and yearly thereafter. I'll give up the right to drink, eat, smoke, text, use my phone, or a GPS, while driving. I'll agree to enough police on the roads to enforce these bans, so long as the fines are great enough to fund the extra police and court time.

Is that enough?

paddingtongreen

Re. your first paragraph, it offers a false choice; it is not the loss of my family, it is a slight increase in risk to all. The small infraction is of the liberties of all of us not just the one terrorist who is planning something.

Re. your second and third paragraphs, I don't like the commercial spying on me but then I can't control them and they don't work for me, the government is supposed to work for me. I don't trust the government because they don't trust me. I believe that many of these programs were promulgated to provide income for government contractors. Check out Dianne Feinstein's conflicts of interest and you'll see what I mean.

Xebedee

I will surrender getting my boss blown up in return for some Librium.