Violations of Privacy and Rights

[Metsfanmax]

Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.

If we changed the word "resistance" to "inquiry," then I'd agree with the italicized, but...

The underlined is not the case because the magnitude differs. With international affairs, (1) the costs of judicial action are more prohibitive/inefficient, and (2) there's the combatant/war justification which lowers the price of drone strikes. Therefore, they (USG: Executive, CIA, US Air Force--to name a few) opt for drone strikes instead of extradition. Rendition and assassination special ops are substitutes but are considered to be more costly than drone strikes--in most cases (e.g. OBL).

This may very well be true, although one could envision exceptions to the rule. For example, a lone terrorist found in a country that commonly extradites to the US, versus a terrorist network that manages to set up a veritable bunker somewhere on US soil that would risk a significant number of law enforcement personnel lives to infiltrate. But that wasn't the real point I was making, because the debate about this issue never even gets as far as what you mentioned in the underlined text. I think that if the government intends to kill American citizens then it had better only be in situations where it is exceedingly dangerous to attempt capture. But before we can even bring the debate to that level, we must ask whether there is any meaningful moral or constitutional difference between it being on American soil and it being somewhere else. I think that, on reflection, we can agree that there is not, yet people treat the question of it being on American soil as fundamentally different in nature, based on some of the things I've seen on the media and in this forum.

Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil?

The differences (to be brief):

(1) Legal
There are legal matters at stake here--namely, (a) due process and other protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and (b) there is the concern about the undermining of checks and balances when the executive can commit extrajudicial killings. Even if the courts explicitly approve such killings, thus rendering them legal, there's still the concern that the checks and balances of the three branches would have become less counterbalancing. This can be very problematic because a more authoritarian president is not in the spirit of the US Constitution nor should it be acceptable to American society in general.

Is any of this relevant to the issue of the distinction between foreign and US operations?

There's a law against the CIA which prohibits it from operating within the US. Instead, the FBI has jurisdiction, so...

(2) Presence of Substitutes already being used:
The FBI already engage in sting operations to capture and prosecute "lone wolves" (i.e. potential terrorists who are not currently part of a terrorist organization yet may commit a terrorist act). So, why use drone strikes when the government is already using 'proper' substitutes?

You're comparing apples to oranges here. If there really were just a lone terrorist, then this person could presumably just as easily be captured on foreign territory by the local government and extradited to the US (the price issue then does become relevant, but that's not a legal argument, which is what I was getting at. I obviously recognize that there's a pragmatic difference between the two alternatives; I was asking for any details that address the constitutionality of the act, which is what is getting all the attention). What we are concerned with is people in complicated networks who cannot easily be captured without substantial risk to law enforcement personnel.

But at any rate, capturing someone with manpower is a much more substantial risk to FBI human capital. No one except the terrorist dies in a well-executed drone strike (not that we have very many well-executed drone strikes under our belt, by that standard).

(3) War Justification/Subversion of the Rule of Law
(a) There's plenty of Laws and Acts which approve of killing US citizens without trial. For example, in times of emergency like in Katrina, martial law was imposed, so the military was simply shooting people without holding trials so that 'law and order' could be maintained.

(b) There's the noncombatant v. combatant debate. If domestic terrorists are deemed combatants, they could be labeled as some kind of domestic rebel force; therefore, the government could dig through the hodge-podge of US laws and find whatever justifies 'extrajudicial' killings. This would pose an alarming prospect.

Again, how is this relevant to whether the person is on foreign or domestic soil?

[Juan_Bottom]

This is an issue?




On 9-11 we sent American Fighter Jets out to kill Americans, and people were upset because they arrived too late. Afterwards it was the Republican (both partys supported) Patriot Act that launched the Drone program. So there is absolutely an honest, fair, and serious discussion that could be had about this topic without jumping to conclusions. Holder said that the military is not needed to stop terrorists on our soil because state law enforcement already does the same job with the same results. We're just talking about "can you imagine a scenario...."

Mr Holder stressed in his letter that the prospect of a president considering the assassination of an American citizen on US soil was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur".

I have to agree with Senator McCain here, a filibuster is unwarranted and stupid. And with the Democrats looking to change the filibuster, giving them cause by filibustering over something so trifle seems helpful only to the Democrats.

[Juan_Bottom]

And I just want to add that - of all the serious issues that this country is confronted with, from gun violence to global warming, this is the issue that gets Rand Paul to filibuster until he gets a promise?

Is there any hope for us?

[BigBallinStalin]

And I just want to add that - of all the serious issues that this country is confronted with, from gun violence to global warming, this is the issue that gets Rand Paul to filibuster until he gets a promise?

Is there any hope for us?

Oh, the answer may be partly contained within the answer to these questions:

Where are the liberals who supposedly are against such atrocious crimes? Where's the left-wing which supposedly disapproves of this?

And why do they continue to support the Executive?

The thread about Obama's explicit approval of exempting a few nations so that they can continue recruiting child soldiers.


Most voters of both parties don't vote on principle. Voting for them is like cheering at sports games. It doesn't matter if their Chosen Party commits the same atrocities as the Other Party. As long as the Chosen Party is in power, then let loose the rabid screaming a >75 million fanboys and fangirls because this is voting.

(see: theory of electoral preference

RE: specifically Rand Paul, he may be trying to capture future libertarian-esque* voters for his probable campaign for presidency.

*In general, people who oppose unnecessary wars and hawkish foreign policies--e.g. Bush's and Obama's.

[Juan_Bottom]

lol

[thegreekdog]

lol

It wasn't an additional question. It was the exact question Rand Paul asked in his original letter.

lol

[thegreekdog]

This is an issue?




On 9-11 we sent American Fighter Jets out to kill Americans, and people were upset because they arrived too late. Afterwards it was the Republican (both partys supported) Patriot Act that launched the Drone program. So there is absolutely an honest, fair, and serious discussion that could be had about this topic without jumping to conclusions. Holder said that the military is not needed to stop terrorists on our soil because state law enforcement already does the same job with the same results. We're just talking about "can you imagine a scenario...."

Mr Holder stressed in his letter that the prospect of a president considering the assassination of an American citizen on US soil was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur".

I have to agree with Senator McCain here, a filibuster is unwarranted and stupid. And with the Democrats looking to change the filibuster, giving them cause by filibustering over something so trifle seems helpful only to the Democrats.

I seem to recall a lot of upsetedness (from me and a whole lot of liberals who, up until about two days ago, were in favor of civil liberties) over the Patriot Act and UAFFA. I'm happy to see Mr. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, erstwhile comedian, is on the side of civil liberties, as are liberal stalwarts such as Rachel Maddow (who gave Senator Paul her "Best New Thing in the World" designation).

No offense, but "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur" don't really fill me with confidence that any administration couldn't use drones (or any other means) to kill an American without due process. Especially since we've had more than a handful of domestic terrorist over the last 20 years where a drone trike (or any other killing without due process) may have been useful.

Since most people didn't find the filibuster trifiling, I don't think this will be helpful for the Democrats. I was glad to see at least one Democratic senator (Ron Wyden) is stlll supportive of civil liberties.

If it helps you at all, I'm flabbergasted by the support Rand Paul has received from people like Rush Limbaugh or Drudge who are all for presidential powers exceeding the grant of the Constitution, so long as a Republican is president. I suspect you fall into this category... a Democat who is in favor of civil liberities unless his leader is a Democrat.

[AndyDufresne]

If it helps you at all, I'm flabbergasted by the support Rand Paul has received from people like Rush Limbaugh or Drudge who are all for presidential powers exceeding the grant of the Constitution, so long as a Republican is president. I suspect you fall into this category... a Democat who is in favor of civil liberities unless his leader is a Democrat.

I think everyone (read: politicians and pundits) is just confused about what "side" they should be in on, since it wasn't immediately clear evidently to them. Ha.


--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

I seem to recall a lot of upsetedness (from me and a whole lot of liberals who, up until about two days ago, were in favor of civil liberties) over the Patriot Act and UAFFA. I'm happy to see Mr. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, erstwhile comedian, is on the side of civil liberties, as are liberal stalwarts such as Rachel Maddow (who gave Senator Paul her "Best New Thing in the World" designation).

No offense, but "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur" don't really fill me with confidence that any administration couldn't use drones (or any other means) to kill an American without due process. Especially since we've had more than a handful of domestic terrorist over the last 20 years where a drone trike (or any other killing without due process) may have been useful.

Since most people didn't find the filibuster trifiling, I don't think this will be helpful for the Democrats. I was glad to see at least one Democratic senator (Ron Wyden) is stlll supportive of civil liberties.

If it helps you at all, I'm flabbergasted by the support Rand Paul has received from people like Rush Limbaugh or Drudge who are all for presidential powers exceeding the grant of the Constitution, so long as a Republican is president. I suspect you fall into this category... a Democat who is in favor of civil liberities unless his leader is a Democrat.

Meh. This is still a hypothetical question, over which I have to agree that a serious discussion can be had without anyone jumping into mad conspiracy theories. If X politician, Comedian, or whoever wants to fight for Civil Liberties then there are more legitimate issues they can talk about than this. No Civil Liberties have ever been in jeopardy in any way over this. It's just a dumb waste of time to throw so much attention towards this instead of, say, the fact that 22% of American children live in poverty, and 16.7 million don't know if they will eat today. It's not a civil liberty, but feeding our kids is pretty important.
& I'm actually flabbergasted that you wouldn't expect Rush Limbaugh to support the guy who's attacking Obama.

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.

If we changed the word "resistance" to "inquiry," then I'd agree with the italicized, but...

The underlined is not the case because the magnitude differs. With international affairs, (1) the costs of judicial action are more prohibitive/inefficient, and (2) there's the combatant/war justification which lowers the price of drone strikes. Therefore, they (USG: Executive, CIA, US Air Force--to name a few) opt for drone strikes instead of extradition. Rendition and assassination special ops are substitutes but are considered to be more costly than drone strikes--in most cases (e.g. OBL).

This may very well be true, although one could envision exceptions to the rule. For example, a lone terrorist found in a country that commonly extradites to the US, versus a terrorist network that manages to set up a veritable bunker somewhere on US soil that would risk a significant number of law enforcement personnel lives to infiltrate. But that wasn't the real point I was making, because the debate about this issue never even gets as far as what you mentioned in the underlined text. I think that if the government intends to kill American citizens then it had better only be in situations where it is exceedingly dangerous to attempt capture. But before we can even bring the debate to that level, we must ask whether there is any meaningful moral or constitutional difference between it being on American soil and it being somewhere else. I think that, on reflection, we can agree that there is not, yet people treat the question of it being on American soil as fundamentally different in nature, based on some of the things I've seen on the media and in this forum.

Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil?

The differences (to be brief):

(1) Legal
There are legal matters at stake here--namely, (a) due process and other protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and (b) there is the concern about the undermining of checks and balances when the executive can commit extrajudicial killings. Even if the courts explicitly approve such killings, thus rendering them legal, there's still the concern that the checks and balances of the three branches would have become less counterbalancing. This can be very problematic because a more authoritarian president is not in the spirit of the US Constitution nor should it be acceptable to American society in general.

Is any of this relevant to the issue of the distinction between foreign and US operations?

There's a law against the CIA which prohibits it from operating within the US. Instead, the FBI has jurisdiction, so...

(2) Presence of Substitutes already being used:
The FBI already engage in sting operations to capture and prosecute "lone wolves" (i.e. potential terrorists who are not currently part of a terrorist organization yet may commit a terrorist act). So, why use drone strikes when the government is already using 'proper' substitutes?

You're comparing apples to oranges here. If there really were just a lone terrorist, then this person could presumably just as easily be captured on foreign territory by the local government and extradited to the US (the price issue then does become relevant, but that's not a legal argument, which is what I was getting at. I obviously recognize that there's a pragmatic difference between the two alternatives; I was asking for any details that address the constitutionality of the act, which is what is getting all the attention). What we are concerned with is people in complicated networks who cannot easily be captured without substantial risk to law enforcement personnel.

But at any rate, capturing someone with manpower is a much more substantial risk to FBI human capital. No one except the terrorist dies in a well-executed drone strike (not that we have very many well-executed drone strikes under our belt, by that standard).

(3) War Justification/Subversion of the Rule of Law
(a) There's plenty of Laws and Acts which approve of killing US citizens without trial. For example, in times of emergency like in Katrina, martial law was imposed, so the military was simply shooting people without holding trials so that 'law and order' could be maintained.

(b) There's the noncombatant v. combatant debate. If domestic terrorists are deemed combatants, they could be labeled as some kind of domestic rebel force; therefore, the government could dig through the hodge-podge of US laws and find whatever justifies 'extrajudicial' killings. This would pose an alarming prospect.

Again, how is this relevant to whether the person is on foreign or domestic soil?

I've typed out a response, but....


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=186774&p=4085347&hilit=controlled#p4085347

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry -- saw that response when I was kind of busy, and intended to respond later but never got around to it. Will do so now.

[saxitoxin]

As trending everywhere ... ACLU-denounced John Brennan demands copy of constitution with no Bill of Rights on which to take oath of office -

New CIA director John Brennan was sworn into office Friday on the original draft of the Constitution — as in, the one drafted in 1787, four years before it included the Bill of Rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/john-brennan-swor ... 16754.html

[thegreekdog]

I seem to recall a lot of upsetedness (from me and a whole lot of liberals who, up until about two days ago, were in favor of civil liberties) over the Patriot Act and UAFFA. I'm happy to see Mr. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, erstwhile comedian, is on the side of civil liberties, as are liberal stalwarts such as Rachel Maddow (who gave Senator Paul her "Best New Thing in the World" designation).

No offense, but "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur" don't really fill me with confidence that any administration couldn't use drones (or any other means) to kill an American without due process. Especially since we've had more than a handful of domestic terrorist over the last 20 years where a drone trike (or any other killing without due process) may have been useful.

Since most people didn't find the filibuster trifiling, I don't think this will be helpful for the Democrats. I was glad to see at least one Democratic senator (Ron Wyden) is stlll supportive of civil liberties.

If it helps you at all, I'm flabbergasted by the support Rand Paul has received from people like Rush Limbaugh or Drudge who are all for presidential powers exceeding the grant of the Constitution, so long as a Republican is president. I suspect you fall into this category... a Democat who is in favor of civil liberities unless his leader is a Democrat.

Meh. This is still a hypothetical question, over which I have to agree that a serious discussion can be had without anyone jumping into mad conspiracy theories. If X politician, Comedian, or whoever wants to fight for Civil Liberties then there are more legitimate issues they can talk about than this. No Civil Liberties have ever been in jeopardy in any way over this. It's just a dumb waste of time to throw so much attention towards this instead of, say, the fact that 22% of American children live in poverty, and 16.7 million don't know if they will eat today. It's not a civil liberty, but feeding our kids is pretty important.
& I'm actually flabbergasted that you wouldn't expect Rush Limbaugh to support the guy who's attacking Obama.

Someone said on the radio (a liberal talk radio guy... just can't remember his name) that this attack on civil liberties probably started with Waco and/or 9/11. To me, at least, this is not a partisan issue, nor are the X% of American children living in poverty (I take umbrage with 22%) and Y million that don't know if they will eat today (again, umbrage).

Given that drone strikes have and do happen on American citizens in foreign countries. Given that suspected terrorists can be and are held without due process, right now, I'm kind of and have been upset over these types of issues. Other than the economy, which directly affects me, the erosion of civil liberties occupies an important place for me.

[Juan_Bottom]

The erosion started pretty much right after the country was founded. This stuff is cyclical. At least for me, the first thing that comes to mind is the Alien and Sedition Act.
But the reason that I brought up the Patriot Act and the start of the Drone program is this - the government has had the hypothetical ability to use drones on Americans since that legislation. And over a dozen police departments have since applied for permits to use the heavy stuff. But for $400 you yourself can buy a dragonfly drone with an HD camera mounted on it.
And our government has used it's emergency powers to use it's military against it's citizens many times. They're always calling out the National Guard against us, they locked up all the Japanese on mainland America in the 40s, and they sent two jet fighters to shoot down American airliners on 9-11. There's nothing new here. Either way you look at it, this is just like wire taps and helicopters. The military may have flipped the bill to develop the technology, but the cops are the ones who are going to use it on you. The federal government's use is purely hypothetical, given a crazy scenario like 9-11.

[BigBallinStalin]

So what do you recommend for the citizens of the US, Juan_Bottom?

[thegreekdog]

The erosion started pretty much right after the country was founded. This stuff is cyclical. At least for me, the first thing that comes to mind is the Alien and Sedition Act.
But the reason that I brought up the Patriot Act and the start of the Drone program is this - the government has had the hypothetical ability to use drones on Americans since that legislation. And over a dozen police departments have since applied for permits to use the heavy stuff. But for $400 you yourself can buy a dragonfly drone with an HD camera mounted on it.
And our government has used it's emergency powers to use it's military against it's citizens many times. They're always calling out the National Guard against us, they locked up all the Japanese on mainland America in the 40s, and they sent two jet fighters to shoot down American airliners on 9-11. There's nothing new here. Either way you look at it, this is just like wire taps and helicopters. The military may have flipped the bill to develop the technology, but the cops are the ones who are going to use it on you. The federal government's use is purely hypothetical, given a crazy scenario like 9-11.

I think the spectre of drones makes the issue come to the forefront in a better way than, say, "locking up the Japanese," which has racial undertones that were more acceptable at the time than "locking up the Muslims" is now.

[thegreekdog]

Wait... there's more!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... EH20130313

Full Disclosure - I changed the name of the thread subject. Rather than doing a new thread every time something comes out on the apparent violation of rights, I'll just add to this thread.

[Metsfanmax]

Wait... there's more!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... EH20130313

Full Disclosure - I changed the name of the thread subject. Rather than doing a new thread every time something comes out on the apparent violation of rights, I'll just add to this thread.

ITT: Information that government organization has in database is shared with other government organizations. Privacy violation!

[thegreekdog]

Wait... there's more!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... EH20130313

Full Disclosure - I changed the name of the thread subject. Rather than doing a new thread every time something comes out on the apparent violation of rights, I'll just add to this thread.

ITT: Information that government organization has in database is shared with other government organizations. Privacy violation!

From the first full paragraph:

"The proposed plan represents a major step by U.S. intelligence agencies to spot and track down terrorist networks and crime syndicates..."

I don't mind the sharing of database (well, I do mind), but define for me "terrorist network" and "crime syndicate." And let me remind you that in the 1940s a terrorist network would have been defined to include all Japanese-Americans and in the 1960s and 1970s a crime syndicate would have been defined to include the Black Panthers.

[Metsfanmax]

Wait... there's more!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... EH20130313

Full Disclosure - I changed the name of the thread subject. Rather than doing a new thread every time something comes out on the apparent violation of rights, I'll just add to this thread.

ITT: Information that government organization has in database is shared with other government organizations. Privacy violation!

From the first full paragraph:

"The proposed plan represents a major step by U.S. intelligence agencies to spot and track down terrorist networks and crime syndicates..."

I don't mind the sharing of database (well, I do mind), but define for me "terrorist network" and "crime syndicate." And let me remind you that in the 1940s a terrorist network would have been defined to include all Japanese-Americans and in the 1960s and 1970s a crime syndicate would have been defined to include the Black Panthers.

If the government already has the information, I don't care how they search it. Saying "I know you have this information but you absolutely cannot analyze it in this particular way" is, to me, inane.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, that's the problem. There is no "cannot analyze it in this particular way" because there's not much that's particular about this. For example, the definition of terrorism (and other key terms) aren't clearly defined, the process is opaque, and this is all coated in a warm, self-satisfying blanket of "national security" and "common good."

[thegreekdog]

Wait... there's more!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... EH20130313

Full Disclosure - I changed the name of the thread subject. Rather than doing a new thread every time something comes out on the apparent violation of rights, I'll just add to this thread.

ITT: Information that government organization has in database is shared with other government organizations. Privacy violation!

From the first full paragraph:

"The proposed plan represents a major step by U.S. intelligence agencies to spot and track down terrorist networks and crime syndicates..."

I don't mind the sharing of database (well, I do mind), but define for me "terrorist network" and "crime syndicate." And let me remind you that in the 1940s a terrorist network would have been defined to include all Japanese-Americans and in the 1960s and 1970s a crime syndicate would have been defined to include the Black Panthers.

If the government already has the information, I don't care how they search it. Saying "I know you have this information but you absolutely cannot analyze it in this particular way" is, to me, inane.

So then they shouldn't have the information or else there should be a process in place such that they cannot use the information without obtaining reasonable evidence. Currently the CIA can obtain the information without obtaining reasonable evidence.

[Metsfanmax]

Wait... there's more!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... EH20130313

Full Disclosure - I changed the name of the thread subject. Rather than doing a new thread every time something comes out on the apparent violation of rights, I'll just add to this thread.

ITT: Information that government organization has in database is shared with other government organizations. Privacy violation!

From the first full paragraph:

"The proposed plan represents a major step by U.S. intelligence agencies to spot and track down terrorist networks and crime syndicates..."

I don't mind the sharing of database (well, I do mind), but define for me "terrorist network" and "crime syndicate." And let me remind you that in the 1940s a terrorist network would have been defined to include all Japanese-Americans and in the 1960s and 1970s a crime syndicate would have been defined to include the Black Panthers.

If the government already has the information, I don't care how they search it. Saying "I know you have this information but you absolutely cannot analyze it in this particular way" is, to me, inane.

So then they shouldn't have the information

Well, that ship has sailed apparently.

or else there should be a process in place such that they cannot use the information without obtaining reasonable evidence. Currently the CIA can obtain the information without obtaining reasonable evidence.

I don't understand this point. If we made it legal for them to collect the evidence, what sense does it make to then hamstring them by saying they cannot "use" it? And isn't that just asking for trouble anyway, since how can we really enforce them not "using" it?

[thegreekdog]

If we made it legal for them to collect the evidence, what sense does it make to then hamstring them by saying they cannot "use" it? And isn't that just asking for trouble anyway, since how can we really enforce them not "using" it?

The sense it makes is that we can protect our privacy. I apparently will not be able to convince you of the concern we all should have about the use of this information. I will attempt a couple of analogies.

Let's say Facebook has this information and can legally use it to try to sell you certian things.
Let's say illegal drug dealers have this information and can legally use it to find you and persuade you to do things for them.

There are two options, as I said. The first is to remove the information. As you've indicated, that ship has sailed. The second is to remove the ability of the CIA (or any other government entity) to use the information without first proving that the information is reasonable for them to obtain. Everything after "without" doesn't hamstring the CIA or anyone else; it merely provides a counterbalance that would work to prevent the information to be used for unwarranted purposes.

If this is not acceptable to you, then I will give up since you value security over any other rights.

[PLAYER57832]

If we made it legal for them to collect the evidence, what sense does it make to then hamstring them by saying they cannot "use" it? And isn't that just asking for trouble anyway, since how can we really enforce them not "using" it?

The sense it makes is that we can protect our privacy. I apparently will not be able to convince you of the concern we all should have about the use of this information. I will attempt a couple of analogies.

Let's say Facebook has this information and can legally use it to try to sell you certian things.
Let's say illegal drug dealers have this information and can legally use it to find you and persuade you to do things for them.

There are two options, as I said. The first is to remove the information. As you've indicated, that ship has sailed. The second is to remove the ability of the CIA (or any other government entity) to use the information without first proving that the information is reasonable for them to obtain. Everything after "without" doesn't hamstring the CIA or anyone else; it merely provides a counterbalance that would work to prevent the information to be used for unwarranted purposes.

If this is not acceptable to you, then I will give up since you value security over any other rights.

You ignore the third and fourth, very real options.

facebook or Google begin by offering you "goodies" .. anything from real goods like a useful app, quicker results to searches or even a T-shirt to less tangible results like giving you "better" search results... "better" being purely subjective "results the user likes".


At first, this is a relatively free and open exchange that mostly benefits the user. A few curmudgeons may revolt and not participate. However, in time, the technology becomes so pervasive that it becomes impractical to NOT use it. I mean, I am old enough to remember when computers and the internet were not part of everyone’s daily life. Today, even many Amish have computers! It goes from being a free and open exchange to something people basically have to have to survive in the real world.

At this point, we are really past the point of retaining our information already. Even if you don’t find tons of stuff about you through a simple “Google” or “Bing” type search, have no illusions.. your information is out there to be bought by whomever wishes, essentially.

The question now is how that information will be used and by whom. Ironically, the government has the least of all reasons to search and retain information on all of us.. at least, as long as it still functions as an independent government. However, because our system is so infused with money and so based on monetary gain.. that is, people have to get LARGE sums of money to get into most public office… its inherently beholden to people who make money for a living, to business. The result is that it is business that will not just use and abuse our information, but be the instrument that instructs the government to do so, in the event it does.

I am not quite sure how to subvert that. We still do have a republic, a type of democracy. However, just looking at all of your arguments shows how deeply the “ignore any negative thing business does” has infused our society. You are all fussing over some searches to find terrorists… and ignoring that your kids will likely not be able to get simple science answers. Or rather, they will get very simplistic answers that don’t in any way condemn the status quo.