There is no specific right to privacy in the constitution. We usually dont think of privacy as a privledge, its just a fact and we take that for granted. but are your actions as private as you think? the supreme court decision in 'Bartnicki v. Vopper' states that illegally recorded cell phone conversations were allowed to be published as long as "the information concerns an issue of public importance, and the press did not participate in or encourage the interception of the phone call." This case took place in May of 2001, before 9/11. Imagine the magnitude of phone calls that the government records, justified, no doubt, as an act of "international security." How many calls have they recorded? How many of them were actually of terrorists? how many more were political intrests pursued in an effort to increase one parties influence over the other? How many were used to justify warrants of arrest for potentially dangerous criminals? I dont doubt that monitoring the media and internet are nessicary ways of preventing crimes, however i judge that monitoring phone conversations is an invasion of privacy. Its just wrong. The first amendment gave us the "freedom of speech," the freedom to state our minds and voice our opinions openly, but what if we didnt want to share those opinions? our thoughts are private, untill someone else is listening. how justified is eavesdropping, how far can it go?
these are my thoughts on invasion of privacy. id like to hear yours.
10 comments:
I agree to an extent that calls should not be recorded. If the government has a good idea of a potentially dangerous suspect, I would rather be invaded by recorded calls than have a repeat of 9/11. It could be a matter of national security. As an example on a larger scale, it could be like airport security. Not everyone is going to blow up a plane, but its better to weed out the few than to let it go on. I do understand that they may or maynot have caught anyone but it can help prevent a disaster in the fututre.
i agree with that benji, but i think that the probable cause of a potentially dangerous suspect should be based on something other than phone calls. if they can justify that it needs to happen then i think thats ok, however check out this exerpt from the book "Inside the Shadow Government" by Harry Helms,
The National Security Agency is the eyes and ears of the U.S. ) intelligence community, including the Shadow Government. It intercepts nearly all international telephone calls, faxes, and emails that travel by satellite or microwave link over any part of their journey. The same goes for cell phone calls (NSA maintains satellites devoted to intercepting cell phone calls), radio transmissions, and other electronic communications that cross international borders. Domestic communications can be, and have been, monitored with equal ease. NSA has the most advanced computers in the world, and their text and speech recognition software scans all intercepted communications for key words and phrases; if they detect any of these, then the entire communication is analyzed. Email encryption and telephone scrambling offer no security. NSA can easily crack such encryption, and it is reported that using encryption only arouses NSA's interest. In fact, it is safest today to assume that any communication you make via electronic means-by phone, fax, the internet, radio, etc.- may be intercepted and analyzed by the NSA.
In the spring of 1999, reports began to appear in the media about a new system called "Echelon," a network of spy satellites and worldwide listening posts run by the NSA. The May 27, 1999 issues of Business Week and The New York Times carried stories about Echelon and its sinister ability to intercept telephone calls, faxes, email, and radio signals and then analyze their contents with powerful supercomputers looking for key words or phrases. As Business Week told its readers, "Just get used to the fact-Big Brother is listening."
interesting huh?
This is what I mean when I talk about a discussion vs. a debate. Good job.
I completely agree with Benji. Personally I would rather let my phone privacy be compromised than have my safety put at risk. We,as a nation, need to come together and set our priorities. Which do we hold with more value privacy or protection?
Its a little disturbing to know that my cell phone conversations might be getting illegally recorded and i would rather they not. But, i'd have to agree with Benji because its a matter of safety and although not all of us are terrorist they are still a few people that are and its important to take safety precautions so that repeats of disasters such as 9/11 can be stopped.
There are definitely 2 sides to this argument:
1. I, just like anyone else, definitely don''t want anyone listening in on private conversations, if I had wanted anyone else to hear it I would have included them in the conversation. And the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of this blatant invasion of privacy is kind of depressing and disturbing.
2. But on the flip side, what better way to head off terrorism or any major crime than to hear the conversations planning it. Although there should definitely be some kind of restrictions to the use of cell phone taps, I believe that to tap a phone call the government should have reason and proof backing it and not just suspicion, search warrants would be a good way of regulating the use of phone taps.
So take it however you want, but I think that the gov't should be able to tap phone call but only with hard evidence and the approval of a judge.
The first amendment DID indeed say you have a "freedom of speech" but does it ever say "privacy?". No sir it didn't.
This law definitely squeezes through the loopholes, but I don't think it's illegal. In a way, it's not like this should affect us. So what if the government listens to our conversations? So what if you're cheating on your girlfriend... it's not like the government is gonna go taddle on you. It's just for our own safety.
As long as you're not breaking laws, it's no biggie.
I would also like to add that I don't condone cheating!! I was just using it to prove a point!
I do agree with Benji. I believe that the government has the right to invade a person's phone calls if, and only if, they have evidence that what is discussed in the phone calls are dangerous and/or treasonous. However, I believe that the government should not have the right to invade our privacy. I believe this right is implied in the first amendment. I do not believe that the government should be allowed to invade anyone's phone call, at any time, for any reason unless they have actual proof that someone's, or everyone's, safety would be at risk.
I do not have a problem at all with a 3rd party listening to any of my conversations. Honestly, what could it hurt? I know a lot of Americans disagree, especially when it comes to our blatantly displayed rights, but anything to protect us against potentially harmful subjects I am an advocate of.
Plus, I'm sure they only listen to conversations they have leads on.
What are people trying to hide anyways that they don't want the government to hear? It justs makes the world all the more suspicious...
Post a Comment