Re: PRIVACY is an INHERENT HUMAN RIGHT

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

McGinn wrote:
> <Strabo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:h6qh929fn8bggca1subf62btci83inn6uf@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:48:29 -0700, "McGinn" <McGinn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"McGinn" <McGinn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:4495fd9f$0$23732$a8266bb1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>>>An official of the Los Angeles County
>>>>>Sheriff's Department was interviewed
>>>>>regarding a report that the county
>>>>>will, sometime this month, begin
>>>>>utilizing an unmanned "drone" aircraft
>>>>>for surveillance purposes. In response
>>>>>to the question that this might create
>>>>>a "big brother" system, he stated:
>>>>>"you have nothing to fear from your
>>>>>own government - you are being watched
>>>>>by your fellow citizens."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you guys know that NSA has alleast 50,000 american civilians on their
>>>payroll COVERTLY SPYING on the REST of the americans ?
>>
>>Post the list.
>
>
>
>
>
> List of UNDERCOVER EVIL AMERICAN GOVT NSA and FBI PSYCHOPATHS and their
> ADDRESSES and PHONE NUMBERS.
>
>
> The FIRST TWO agents Maddelina Wahl and Kathleen Taylor are listed on
> www.infospace.com under their UNDERCOVER AGENTS HUSBANDS names Larry Wahl
> and Kevin Taylor.
>
>
> 1) Agent Maddelina Wahl , 28087 Hickory Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 38331
> ph 248-324-1527.
>
>
> 2) Agent Kathleen Taylor, 29390 Bermuda Lane, Southfield, MI 48034, Ph
> 248-356-1946.
>
>
> 3) Agent Mediha Krijestorac, 30408 Shiawasee Rd, Farmington MI 48336, ph
> 248-477-9161.
>
>
> 4) Agent Frank Spodek, email id:   sfrank9 at aol.com or sfrank9@xxxxxxx
>
>
> 5) 351 FTK - Atlanta, Georgia car registration in Sep 2004 (undercover
> agents)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>How do you know your neighbor is NOT ONE OF THEM ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>     The Value of Privacy
>>>>
>>>>Last month, revelation of yet another NSA surveillance effort against
>>>>the American people rekindled the privacy debate.  Those in favor of
>>>>these programs have trotted out the same rhetorical question we hear
>>>>every time privacy advocates oppose ID checks, video cameras, massive
>>>>databases, data mining, and other wholesale surveillance measures: "If
>>>>you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no
>>>>cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's
>>>>wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do
>>>>something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these
>>>>-- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy
>>>>is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right,
>>>>and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and
>>>>respect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Two proverbs say it best: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who
>>>>watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he
>>>>famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of
>>>>the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him
>>>>hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest
>>>>-- or just blackmail -- him with. Privacy is important because without
>>>>it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to
>>>>marketers, and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be
>>>>at the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing
>>>>nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not
>>>>deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for
>>>>reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the
>>>>privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn
>>>>them. Privacy is a basic human need.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to
>>>>the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call
>>>>out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility
>>>>of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own
>>>>home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be
>>>>inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted
>>>>criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic
>>>>to the concept of liberty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat
>>>>of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own
>>>>uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes,
>>>>constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future --
>>>>patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by
>>>>whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and
>>>>innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is
>>>>observable and recordable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How many of us have paused during conversations in the past
>>>>four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on?
>>>>Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail
>>>>or instant message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe
>>>>the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly,
>>>>momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then
>>>>we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and
>>>>our words are subtly altered.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us.
>>>>This was life in the former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's
>>>>Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our
>>>>personal, private lives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy."
>>>>The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises
>>>>under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic
>>>>authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security
>>>>without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police
>>>>surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why
>>>>we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Copyright 2006 by Bruce Schneier.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
>>News==----
>>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
>>Newsgroups
>>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
>>=----
>
>
>

Don't know about you guys, but what I find particularly funny about this
"McQuim" character is that he's going on and on about "psychos" invading
*his* privacy and then posts the private addresses of a half dozen
fellow Americans...  in multiple Newsgroups...