Violations of Privacy and Rights

[thegreekdog]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

[Metsfanmax]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

In this case the information has already been gathered, so your analogy is totally false. The phone tapping and home-searching has already happened (and legally, in this case). Now the only question is whether the police can bring you to court with it.

[thegreekdog]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

In this case the information has already been gathered, so your analogy is totally false. The phone tapping and home-searching has already happened (and legally, in this case). Now the only question is whether the police can bring you to court with it.

Actually, those things have not happened. The CIA has not already "tapped phones" and done "home searches." The provision in question allows the CIA to "tap phones" and do "home searching."

[PLAYER57832]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

Oops, sorry, having to past and write/edit in word, then past back… wind up missing things sometimes as a result.


My point is that Microsoft and Google can basically already do that. They might not get the exact totals of my bank account today, but already have enough information to deduce that if they wished. Currently, they cannot be bothered.

BUT… scenario 3 is where someone else, outside the US probably, gets that information and uses it. This is already happening. We see big names mentioned on the news, but the main reason folks like myself are not being actively targeted is just that there is little to be gained. Fast forward to a more tight political situation and issues that really need every vote, and suddenly you have some interest in my personal information. In that case, its unlikely that “the government” will have a big stake… those already in the government have much easier paths to use.


Scenario 4 is that Google or whomever sells my information, perhaps with my permission (likely implied, but possibly overt), to marketers. I do a search for, say, causes of rectal bleeding. Suddenly my inbox is filled with advertisements for hemorrhoid treatments, instructions about rectal cancer screenings, etc. A bit, erm.. rude, perhaps, but not dangerous. Now, however, fast forward to a search for various women’s issues. Let’s say that this information winds up in the hands of my employer… or just could be marketed to my employer. NOW do you care? I would. A woman who works for a Roman Catholic school might just care.

Scenario 5… is already happening, but gets even more scary. Google already says it can target searches based on previous searches. That means that Nightstrike is more likely to get conservative data, Viceroy is going to find all kinds of anti-evolution stuff. If their kids do a search for some science project, are they going to get the same information as yours or mine? Are they going to truly understand the difference? Will their teachers? (The answer to the last is already “no”, by-the-way, in many cases)

[Metsfanmax]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

In this case the information has already been gathered, so your analogy is totally false. The phone tapping and home-searching has already happened (and legally, in this case). Now the only question is whether the police can bring you to court with it.

Actually, those things have not happened. The CIA has not already "tapped phones" and done "home searches." The provision in question allows the CIA to "tap phones" and do "home searching."

The analogy is still flawed. From a practical point of view, this is like if the cop at the local police station, who keeps all the files on financial crimes locked in his desk, decides to give the key to his buddy the homicide cop.

[BigBallinStalin]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

In this case the information has already been gathered, so your analogy is totally false. The phone tapping and home-searching has already happened (and legally, in this case). Now the only question is whether the police can bring you to court with it.

Actually, those things have not happened. The CIA has not already "tapped phones" and done "home searches." The provision in question allows the CIA to "tap phones" and do "home searching."

The analogy is still flawed. From a practical point of view, this is like if the cop at the local police station, who keeps all the files on financial crimes locked in his desk, decides to give the key to his buddy the homicide cop.

Or it would be like the cop giving away information to those who claim the rights to it (e.g. CIA, FBI, etc.). And depending on their 'constraints'--whatever they may be, then a problem arises, which you've been overlooking:

"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."

Different bureaucracies face different constraints, which vary is transparency, oversight (by people or by their cheerleading Congress members), etc.

[thegreekdog]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

In this case the information has already been gathered, so your analogy is totally false. The phone tapping and home-searching has already happened (and legally, in this case). Now the only question is whether the police can bring you to court with it.

Actually, those things have not happened. The CIA has not already "tapped phones" and done "home searches." The provision in question allows the CIA to "tap phones" and do "home searching."

The analogy is still flawed. From a practical point of view, this is like if the cop at the local police station, who keeps all the files on financial crimes locked in his desk, decides to give the key to his buddy the homicide cop.

Yes... and? That is illegal. Inane? Sure. Legal? Nopers.

[thegreekdog]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

Oops, sorry, having to past and write/edit in word, then past back… wind up missing things sometimes as a result.


My point is that Microsoft and Google can basically already do that. They might not get the exact totals of my bank account today, but already have enough information to deduce that if they wished. Currently, they cannot be bothered.

BUT… scenario 3 is where someone else, outside the US probably, gets that information and uses it. This is already happening. We see big names mentioned on the news, but the main reason folks like myself are not being actively targeted is just that there is little to be gained. Fast forward to a more tight political situation and issues that really need every vote, and suddenly you have some interest in my personal information. In that case, its unlikely that “the government” will have a big stake… those already in the government have much easier paths to use.


Scenario 4 is that Google or whomever sells my information, perhaps with my permission (likely implied, but possibly overt), to marketers. I do a search for, say, causes of rectal bleeding. Suddenly my inbox is filled with advertisements for hemorrhoid treatments, instructions about rectal cancer screenings, etc. A bit, erm.. rude, perhaps, but not dangerous. Now, however, fast forward to a search for various women’s issues. Let’s say that this information winds up in the hands of my employer… or just could be marketed to my employer. NOW do you care? I would. A woman who works for a Roman Catholic school might just care.

Scenario 5… is already happening, but gets even more scary. Google already says it can target searches based on previous searches. That means that Nightstrike is more likely to get conservative data, Viceroy is going to find all kinds of anti-evolution stuff. If their kids do a search for some science project, are they going to get the same information as yours or mine? Are they going to truly understand the difference? Will their teachers? (The answer to the last is already “no”, by-the-way, in many cases)

No offense (because you raise valid points), but, although I'm concerned as to what Google does with their information, Google can't kill or imprison me. The federal government can, so I'm more concerned with them.

[PLAYER57832]

[
No offense (because you raise valid points), but, although I'm concerned as to what Google does with their information, Google can't kill or imprison me. The federal government can, so I'm more concerned with them.

Yet....

But also, this is not limited to US players. Right now, the more common threat is loss of all your money, sometimes a house.
(seriously, as records get twisted).

However, there is nothing to stop someone from doing many other things, ranging from inserting nasty pictures on your computer to other things. (let your imagination roll.. I don't care to elaborate).

The only thing keeping us safe from such threats is that so far, those types of actions are not terribly profitable.

I am not so much worried about Google, per se, itself coming in and arranging to have me put in jail. However, google has the information that could be sold (more likely for real people with real power and/or money, of course).

Just heard, for example that the First Lady and Joe Paterno's data was publically released. It would not take much imagination to envision something much, much worse.

AND... the foundation of our rights is knowledge of those rights. Lack that knowledge, and we have no protections at all.


Either way, the government threat is rather passe.

[thegreekdog]

[
No offense (because you raise valid points), but, although I'm concerned as to what Google does with their information, Google can't kill or imprison me. The federal government can, so I'm more concerned with them.

Yet....

But also, this is not limited to US players. Right now, the more common threat is loss of all your money, sometimes a house.
(seriously, as records get twisted).

However, there is nothing to stop someone from doing many other things, ranging from inserting nasty pictures on your computer to other things. (let your imagination roll.. I don't care to elaborate).

The only thing keeping us safe from such threats is that so far, those types of actions are not terribly profitable.

I am not so much worried about Google, per se, itself coming in and arranging to have me put in jail. However, google has the information that could be sold (more likely for real people with real power and/or money, of course).

Just heard, for example that the First Lady and Joe Paterno's data was publically released. It would not take much imagination to envision something much, much worse.

AND... the foundation of our rights is knowledge of those rights. Lack that knowledge, and we have no protections at all.


Either way, the government threat is rather passe.

You should make another thread about threats of Google and the like, but that thread already exists.

[Juan_Bottom]

FBI's 'National Security Letters' Demands Ruled Unconstitutional

"National security letters date back to the 1980s and were strengthened under the USA Patriot Act, the counterterrorism law put into place after Sept. 11. The letters allow the FBI to get data on phone, financial and electronic records without a judge or grand jury, as long as the head of an FBI field office certifies that the records would be relevant to a counterterrorism investigation. They typically come with strict secrecy orders, barring the recipient from acknowledging the case to anyone but attorneys."

[rishaed]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

In this case the information has already been gathered, so your analogy is totally false. The phone tapping and home-searching has already happened (and legally, in this case). Now the only question is whether the police can bring you to court with it.

Objection!!! I declare a violation of my 4th Amendment! They must have a warrant when either, searching my home, tapping my phone wires, or searching my private information! TO obtain the warrant they must have reasonable suspicion.

[Metsfanmax]

What are the third and fourth options?

Let's imagine that a police force is permitted to collect and use any evidence it wants without asking a judge first. The police force can search your (you Player) bank accounts, it can walk into your home without knocking, it can tap your phones without a warrant. Do you care?

In this case the information has already been gathered, so your analogy is totally false. The phone tapping and home-searching has already happened (and legally, in this case). Now the only question is whether the police can bring you to court with it.

Objection!!! I declare a violation of my 4th Amendment! They must have a warrant when either, searching my home, tapping my phone wires, or searching my private information! TO obtain the warrant they must have reasonable suspicion.

Precisely. Most of us would agree that there should be some legal standard, such as reasonable suspicion, that would apply to the government collecting such information about our financial activities. Yet the current law mandates that the private financial institutions must report "suspicious" activity, which is not in line with our intuitive understanding of how the government should be obtaining information about you. Instead of trying to fight which agency of the government has access to this information, we should fight the law that makes the financial industry become the government's stool pigeon.

[patches70]

Yet the current law mandates that the private financial institutions must report "suspicious" activity, which is not in line with our intuitive understanding of how the government should be obtaining information about you. Instead of trying to fight which agency of the government has access to this information, we should fight the law that makes the financial industry become the government's stool pigeon.

That started with TARP, don't ya know? There are provisions in the TARP bill that effectively deputized financial institutions. The institutions have little choice, if they don't comply then their assets are subject to seizure by the government.



The unfortunate problem you have, Mets, is that everything is now in place. That ship has sailed and it can't be changed through the two party system, relying on either Dems or Reps. They are the ones who put all this in place after all. All that is needed now is the catalyst. Then you'll see how cowtowing and giving the government even an inch becomes a serious problem to your liberty. Could be a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, civil unrest, collapsing economy, collapsing currency, war or any number of things and what we once took for granted as Constitutional protections, common courtesy, privacy, fairness and even due process all are things of the past.
And still there will be people who are- "Well, we gotta do it..."

Normalcy bias, it's a hell of thing. Can't imagine the Black Swans and thus never see 'em coming. Even though it's all right there in front of your eyes but just refused to see.

It used to be, pre Patriot Act, if the cops suspected you of something and they wanted a look at your finances, they'd have to get a court order first. They'd take that court order to your financial institution. Your financial institution would tell them- "We'll comply with your order in <X amount of hours/days> and then immediately contact you. Your financial institution would inform you of the court order and when they will have to comply with said order, giving you time to get a lawyer and even attempt to stop the order from being executed.
Today, law enforcement doesn't even have to bother with any of that. They contact your financial institution and by law the institution must grant immediate access and are barred from contacting you. If the government finds something, then they get the court order. If they find nothing, then nothing happens and the financial institution is barred, by law, from informing you that it even happened. Sneak and Peek as it's affectionately termed.

Fight these laws? There were many who were telling everyone of the consequences of these laws before they were even enacted, and yet the laws were enacted.

Collectivism, destroying individual liberty and freedom in the name of the "Greater Good" since be beginning of human society. After all, these laws were enacted so that we could stop terrorists from acting and "protect us all". That's how it was sold and we bought it hook, line and sinker.
If you were to want to fight these laws, Mets, then that would mean that you are for the terrorists. Are you pro-terrorist Mets?*


*It's ridiculous, of course, but that's the line used against those who spoke out against types of laws from the get go, and other ways of discrediting the objections, and all those tactics worked. Obviously.

[stahrgazer]

Actually, those things have not happened. The CIA has not already "tapped phones" and done "home searches." The provision in question allows the CIA to "tap phones" and do "home searching."

Don't delude yourself. It's happened.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well... the CIA isn't suppose to operate within US borders. That's what the NSA and FBI are for.

[rishaed]

Well... the CIA isn't suppose to operate within US borders. That's what the NSA and FBI are for.

Dont delude yourself I would bet the bank it's happened.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well... the CIA isn't suppose to operate within US borders. That's what the NSA and FBI are for.

Dont delude yourself I would bet the bank it's happened.

You blame organization A yet ignore organizations B and C, which are capable of performing and complementing the activities of organization A. Just sayin'.

[rishaed]

I didn't say that it didn't, however the FBI are legally responsible for inside the US. Was just saying that it would be foolish to believe the CIA hasn't had OPs on American soil.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll believe it when I see better evidence.

[warmonger1981]

Top secret operations are rarely talked about so proof of CIA working inside the US is doubtful. I would bet they have though. Why would they not if it ultimately benefits them?

[BigBallinStalin]

Top secret operations are rarely talked about so proof of CIA working inside the US is doubtful. I would bet they have though. Why would they not if it ultimately benefits them?

Because of costs.

[warmonger1981]

Do the ends justify the means? Is there not a portion of the budged that is like a black hole. Numbers or costs of jobs are itemized but they have no job title or description. Just saying that the money that would need to be used could be easily taken out of that black hole. Not everything that needs to be done in the best interests of the government will be on paper.

[PLAYER57832]

Well... the CIA isn't suppose to operate within US borders. That's what the NSA and FBI are for.

Dont delude yourself I would bet the bank it's happened.

You blame organization A yet ignore organizations B and C, which are capable of performing and complementing the activities of organization A. Just sayin'.

They are all guilty, but how each operates is different. Theoretically, the FBI and NSA , plus a few other groups, are supposed to operate in the US and CIA outside, but, well.... remember when no one would even admit that the CIA existed? I can.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do the ends justify the means? Is there not a portion of the budged that is like a black hole. Numbers or costs of jobs are itemized but they have no job title or description. Just saying that the money that would need to be used could be easily taken out of that black hole. Not everything that needs to be done in the best interests of the government will be on paper.

Right, but costs include more than money.