Re: PRIVACY is an INHERENT HUMAN RIGHT

["McGinn" <McGinn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Contact the NSA and FBI PSYCHOPATHS at their phone numbers and names posted
on this newsgroup in a different thread.



"Tommy" <tommy at leesecurity dot net> wrote in message
news:44971138$0$9874$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hey,
> If they want to know when my neighbor mows his lawn and waters the
> garden, i will let them know. where do we sign up and how much does it
> pay?
> --
>
>
>
> McGinn 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 ?
>>
>> 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 a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>