Tell Me Again Why Domestic Spying is Good?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety.~Benjamin Franklin


The key being "essential".

[fatman]

And i don't see this as an example of domestic spying, this is an example of abuse of access.

Much ado about nada

On one hand I agree with you Bt, but on the other hand I don't.  Passport info probably isn't going to cause anyone any problems, but now we've got other programs (or have had for some time).  I don't care to place my trust in the government to protect my privacy.  With a situation like this, it's only a matter of time (in my mind) until it's abused, and then justified, by the government.  The more justification we allow the government, the more likely the abuse.

But again, that's only my opinion, and I'm sure that there are some in here with more experience in these matters.

[BT]

This is the information age. Credit card receipts are more telling than passport data and that info is readily available, with much less security that govt databases.

The info is available. What is done with the info is when the boundaries of ethical conduct can be breached.

[fatman]

The info is available. What is done with the info is when the boundaries of ethical conduct can be breached.

I understand that.  But again, the more justification we allow the government, especially on privacy issues, the slippery that slope becomes.  At the very least, with the warrantless wiretap issue, there should be Congressional oversight, or oversight that doesn't come from the Executive Branch.  There is oversight with FISA, in the form of Federal Judges, but once you remove them from the equation with allowing wiretaps without warrants, there isn't any oversight.  And actions without oversight, especially in government (and I don't give a flying squirrel if it's Dem, Rep, or Ross Perot) isn't a good thing.  It tends to end badly for one party or another.

That's beside the fact that this breach took two months to come to light.  Yes, as you said, the breach probably isn't important.  That said, it has the potential to become important.  And breaches, whether it's passports, wiretaps, credit card records, phone records, or my Columbia House CD club, are inherently bad.  They destroy trust and credibility.

[BT]

I think you are conflating issues.

The passport data was accessed by people who had security permissions to access those records, because working with passport data was their job. 

Safeguards were in place, that is how the State Dept knew the files had been accessed.

The employees were each caught because of a computer-monitoring system that is triggered when the passport account of a "high-profile person" is accessed, department spokesman Tom Casey said. The system, which focuses on politicians and celebrities, was put in place in recent years, after the State Department was embroiled in a scandal involving the access of the passport records of then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992.

From the article that started the thread.

I don't consider this to be cause for anywhere near the level of concern as one might have for warrantless wiretaps and FISA abuses.

[fatman]

I think you are conflating issues.

I took another look at it and yeah, I am.

I don't consider this to be cause for anywhere near the level of concern as one might have for warrantless wiretaps and FISA abuses.

Point taken.

[Universe Prince]

they can listen to all my phone calls
if they can keep the IslamoNazis from killing me

And if they cannot? What then? What is the next issue of privacy or rights that you are willing to surrender in the name of security?

This makes me want to return to my old hypothetical of government monitored cameras in every room of every building, including homes. It would be sure deterrent to terrorism and crime in general. One would never know when someone was watching, and computers could be programmed to look for specific behavior patterns and to keep a record of everyone who entered and left the buildings. No one would have any privacy, well, except the government of course, but think how safe we would all be, well, except from the government of course. So, stopping terrorism and crime, who is for it? Everyone, right? So then there are no objections to cameras in every room of your home?

Yes, that is extreme, but it is also the logical extension of comments like "they can listen to all my phone calls if they can keep the IslamoNazis from killing me".

[Universe Prince]

This is the information age. Credit card receipts are more telling than passport data and that info is readily available, with much less security that govt databases.

Credit cards are more of a voluntary nature than the government wiretapping. It's one thing for someone with whom I choose to do business to have information about me when I know they have it and have voluntarily given it to them. The government trying without my permission to get information about me without my knowledge is considerably different. Particularly since the government has authority to use all manner of force against me. I don't know of any credit card companies getting into waterboarding customers, do you?

[Universe Prince]

I don't consider this to be cause for anywhere near the level of concern as one might have for warrantless wiretaps and FISA abuses.

It probably isn't. But it's not exactly a comforting bit of news either.

[BT]

Credit cards are more of a voluntary nature than the government wiretapping.

So is having a telephone to tap, but that isn't the point.

This isn't a story of government wiretapping.

It is a story of people with access to passport data accessing passport data. Unfortunately they had no reason to access Obama's, Clinton or McCain's data, and because of that they were caught by built in safeguards in the system.

[hnumpah]

The key being "essential".

Yeah, right. Go read the Constitution, then tell me, if they didn't consider it 'essential', why did the writers prohibit warrantless searches, and why did they enumerate the right to be secure in your home?

You can roll over and surrender your rights if you wish. I'll fight for mine.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Yeah, right. Go read the Constitution, then tell me, if they didn't consider it 'essential',

My phone calls are not more important than my life
but you can go on pretending we're not in the "Long War".

why did the writers prohibit warrantless searches,
and why did they enumerate the right to be secure in your home?

Because they wanted to prohibit warrantless searches

You can roll over and surrender your rights if you wish. I'll fight for mine.
 
My telephone privacy rights are secondary to my life.
 
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

My telephone privacy rights are secondary to my life.
 
So, you won't mind if we come over and spy on you, so long as we claim it's to defend you?
You could assume that by WE one of us is Dick Cheney...

I don't think I would be willing to give you that right.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"So, you won't mind if we come over and spy on you,
so long as we claim it's to defend you?"

Of course as long as you are elected by the American People
and feel that by listening to some telephone calls that a massive
attack on US soil can be prevented and/or my life can be saved
then yes I would gladly allow you to listen to me talk to
my grandmother about baking cookies to save my life. 



 

[fatman]

Of course as long as you are elected by the American People

I'm pretty sure that the heads of the CIA and FBI aren't elected by the American people.  Nor are the technicians doing the tapping and listening.   Nor were the staffers and advisors that came up with the Un-Patriot Act.  Nor is the Attorney General.  Nor are the Federal Judges that at least used to authorize the taps.

as long... and feel... can be... can be...

That's a lot of supposition.