Bush Administration Demands Search Records

[Panthere Noir]

Originally Posted by Webvisitor

At ease soldier there is no similarity. If it were the the info would be seized, not subpoenaed. In our country a subpoena is issued and lawyers negotiate. Ultimately a judge decides. Nowhere on Earth is there a more fair system.

If you really and truly belive that, then I suggest you take a good look at two laws of Februrary and March 1933 - the "Reichstagsbrandverordnung"* and the "Ermächtigungsgesetz"** - and compare their content and real and possible effects with the same of your own Patriot Act.

*Reichstagsbrandverordnung: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
**Ermächtigungsgesetz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

There are also some comments from some of your fellow Americans on the topic (the authors of which I know nothing about aside from what they are writing in those particular pieces, so I haven't selected them for any particular political preference, if they have such):

http://www.covenantnews.com/cronkrite041018.htm
http://neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004090311.html

Concerning Padilla, I really have to say I find your claim that he tried to blow the WTO the first time amazing, even the US government hasn't been saying that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla

As to the assertion that there is nowhere on earth a more fair system, I think that Padilla's case as well as the simple existence of "enemy combatants" already invalidates that claim, but I rather prefer not to discuss that topic, since it would lead way beyond the intended scope of this thread.

It's also funny that you are accusing me of making a comparision - that of Joseph Goebbels to the current US government - that I haven't made. Since you brought it up, however, I guess you know the saying about "if the shoe fits . . ." (personally, I think it doesn't: Goebbels actually had to fight for control over contemporary German media; in the USA, the mainstream media seem to have decided to roll oer and play dead on their own).

Finally, while I am not a soldier, I am quite at ease: I am not a citizen of the United States nor living there, so anything unfortunate that might - likely will - be happening in that country very likely is going to have very little impact on my life. Cheers.

PS, re your "incredible and distasteful" closing: All that arguments at hominem usually show it the paucity of one's manners and one's arguments. Next time, try arguing your case instead of attempting to insult the person you're addressing.

[PhilC]

Originally Posted by Panthere Noir

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

"essential liberty"? You consifer that the storing of a population's DNA in the fight against crime is giving up some "essential liberty"? What's so essential about not having your DNA profile stored? And what liberty would it deprive anyone of? Benjamin Franklin was as entitled to his view as anyone else, and there's nothing special about his view. But he was talking about essential liberty - we are not.

Originally Posted by Panthere Noir

... the creation of fingerprint and DNA might make crime solving easier, I much doubt that it would prevent criminal actions to the extent that supporters of such ideas suggest.

I've no idea how much crime people think that DNA records would solve and prevent, but I'm darned sure that it would solve and prevent a lot, including many rapes, murders, sex against children, etc. If it cuts into serious crime by say 20%, is it worth it? Of course it is. It's not even a trade-off, because the population loses nothing in terms of privacy, freedom, or anything else.

[vayapues]

Wow!! Take the weekend off from posting, and the thread goes crazy!

So much to respond to.

First from Computer Dave

You haven't seen anything on the illegal wiretaps?

No I haven't heard any stories about "illegal" wiretaps. I have heard plenty of stories about legal wiretaps though. Calling them illegal is simply grasping at straws by those who dislike the President. Polls show that a huge majority of Americans approve of wiretapping known terrorists. That aside, since opinion has nothing to do with law, the fact remains that there have been no laws broken, and no privacy violated. If you are emailing or calling known terrorists, then by all means, expect your conversations to be listened in on.


Actually, I wonder how history will view Bush. Lincoln was seen in his day as a tyrant, who was trampling freedom under his feet. Yes, Panthere Noir there were even foreigners who commented how Lincoln would destroy the United States. Polls were very unfavorable to the man. Many called him too ignorant and stupid, also ugly (which, lets be honest, he was). Will History see Bush as one of our greatest presidents?

Why do we see Lincoln the way we do today? Well, certainly the assassination has a lot to do with it. But also, because he was a true man. He recognized the dangers of his day, and had the courage to hold the country together by shear will power. Had he not been President, had any other man been president, there is almost no doubt that the union would have collapsed.

The challenges Bush has successfully faced are amazing, and many. The opposition within our own country has been great. Yet he has, by his own will power managed to protect us.

blah blah blah.

ok, now back to the topic. I have given this topic some thought over the week-end, as I spackeled my bathroom walls. Yes, I like Bush (put some spackle on the wall), yes, I think he will be seen as a great President(sand down the spackle), but... (whip the sweat off my forehead)

Here it comes

Everyone makes mistakes. Lincoln went too far during the civil war, Roosevelt certainly went to far during WWII. Hind-sight is 20/20. Bush has certainly gone too far more then once, in the War on Terror. Not any more or less then any other president. He just gets a lot more flack for it by a 24/7 media, and those who hate him. Honestly, given the fact that he makes dozens and dozens of high stakes decisions every day, it would be truely amazing, if some of them were not wrong.

I don't think asking for the search data is wrong. I don't believe for a minute the ridiculous argument that they only want to lay a foundation to control search, and display only favorable results to them self. I do think though that Bush should give up the fight, if a court determines that they can't have the data. Which is of course exactly what he will do. So, what conclusions did I draw over the week-end?

Bush is a great guy.

But not perfect.

Asking for the search results was all well and good.

Perhaps a little pointless, since it really won't tell them much, but not a violation of privacy.

Our system of government is truly inspired and amazing.

Nothing wrong with Bush's people taking it to court, other then it might be a bad PR move. But sometimes you have to do things that are unpopular as a leader.

If the courts say "No, you can't have Google's search results" then the Admin should quite.

of course they will quite. They respect the laws of the land. Which again, is why our system is so amazing.

As to the assertion that there is nowhere on earth a more fair system, I think that Padilla's case as well as the simple existence of "enemy combatants" already invalidates that claim, but I rather prefer not to discuss that topic, since it would lead way beyond the intended scope of this thread.

It's also funny that you are accusing me of making a comparison - that of Joseph Goebbels to the current US government - that I haven't made. Since you brought it up, however, I guess you know the saying about "if the shoe fits . . ." (personally, I think it doesn't: Goebbels actually had to fight for control over contemporary German media; in the USA, the mainstream media seem to have decided to roll oer and play dead on their own).

Finally, while I am not a soldier, I am quite at ease: I am not a citizen of the United States nor living there, so anything unfortunate that might - likely will - be happening in that country very likely is going to have very little impact on my life.

With all due respect, you really don't know what you are talking about. You don't know the culture of the people within the nation you are referring to. You seem to be implying that the USA is in imminet danger of some great claminty. The fact is that our system continues despite itself, because of the way powers are balanced. The most ambitious and hitleresk man on Earth could be elected President, and not have a hope of getting around the safety measures built into the system. Our culture simply wouldn't allow it.

I realize that this is difficult to understand, comming from a nation were power is not so guarded, and freedoms so protected, over here we celebrate the peaceful change of power every 4-8 years. If a President ever refused to leave office, he would be laughed at, and removed by his own office staff.

Well, in 100 years, when we are all dead, and the USA is still stable, and free, (and still debating how the current president of the day is pushing the limits) perhaps we can discuss the issue further.

[mcanerin]

It's an established maxim of law that if you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, you can't complain about a lack of privacy. Common examples would be a nudist on a nude beach, or a celebrity in a shopping mall, or an employee on a work computer, during work hours.

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy for the use of a search engine?

After all, if there isn't, then this whole thing is "much ado about nothing". If you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, then you really have no valid complaint about it's absence.

Of course, you may very well have a reasonable expectation that you SHOULD have privacy, but that's part 2.

How is a reasonable expectation of privacy determined? I would offer you the following possible criteria:

1) Stated Notifications. This includes posted privacy policies, and related materials.

2) Laws. If the law says you can't expect something to be private, then that's a pretty strong indication that it would be unreasonable to assume it's private anyway.

3) Common Practice or Knowledge. If you know that something is routinely monitored, then it's hard to say you had a reasonable expectation of privacy when they monitor you.

There is also an issue of de minimus non curat lex, or the law does not concern itself with trifles, that I'll get into why that might actually apply to something as important as privacy in a second.

What then, is your reasonable expectation of privacy when you do a search?

Well, let's start from your keyboard and work outward. Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy at your desk? No, if you are at work on your companies computer. Yes, if you are at home, and are not a minor child, married, or have installed spyware on your computer after clicking an "I Agree".

Of course, your own browser is often collecting information on you, in terms of it's cache and history files. If you have a firewall or other security software, it may be collecting information, as well. Every time you go someplace that forces a firewall or other security software to block a pop-up, cookie, or program, that information (along with time, date and URL) is usually stored in the logs.

You may argue that the only ones left with any privacy rights at that point are a very small segment of the population. You may be correct. Let's move on, though.

You now connect from your desk to the internet through an ISP. Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy with your ISP? Depends. It's up to the Privacy policy of the ISP. For example, AOL makes it clear that they DO collect information on you (most ISP's do).

Can your ISP see your searches? Yes. The server logs would show all the URL's you went to, including results pages for every search engine. Further, they would even show if you visited a site after a search. and what you did. This is more data than a search engine has on you. Also, unlike a search engine, an ISP may also have your home address, credit card information, and a lot of other information.

In practice, the only privacy you have with an ISP is their data-retention policies (how long they keep their logs for, and what is saved in the logs) and the fact that they can't be totally sure which subscriber on a connected computer was using it at any one time. Not a lot to hang your hat on, honestly.

Well then, we are at the search engine, aren't we? The search engine that you use then collects all the information of your searches as part of it's logs (your ISP is doing the same thing at the same time) in accordance (one would hope) with it's privacy policy.

Googles, for example, says:

We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services.

Reading their full privacy policy, it's pretty clear that they intend to maintain your privacy, unless legally required not to. You would probably have a reasonable expectation of privacy from everyone except a government or person with a valid warrant, then. The privacy policies of Yahoo and MSN are similar in this regard.

Alright, now you've done the search and then what? Well, maybe you go to a site. Question? What is your expectation of privacy at that point?

Well, even if a site has a strong privacy policy, you need to land on it and read it first, so it's unreasonable to assume that you have any privacy until you have read the privacy policy. For all you know, the privacy policy states clearly you don't have any. You can't assume you do until you check (and even then, they may be lying).

Once again, your ISP is logging this. Even if a website agrees to respect your privacy, the ISP may not, and has almost the same information on you. Those are the guys I'm actually worried about. They often have your email, too.

Feeling a little exposed? There are a few protections in place, though. Let's see if they work.

First, the EU, Canada and a few other places have fairly strong privacy laws, and those laws apply to any operations within their borders. In Canada, the rule is that you can only collect the absolute minimum information necessary to complete the requested transaction, for example.

This is very different from the usual marketing approach of "collect everything that we are legally allowed to". But that only helps Canadians, and not even then if the violation is in a different country on records held in that country.

Your privacy rights are only as protected as the rights granted in the weakest jurisdiction your information is held in or accessible from - the weakest link.

This has severe repercussions internationally. If country X has weak privacy laws and your data is held in countries X,Y and Z, then your protection is only as strong as X. Period. So much for jurisdiction specific privacy laws in an age of redundant international servers and local head offices.

As you can see from the above, Privacy is a "weakest link" issue, not a "totality of the whole" or "strongest rule" issue.

I think it would also be fair to argue that, based on the above, no one can currently have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their internet activities. There are too many data collection points with too many conflicting obligations, expectations and legal requirements.

This is why I brought up the de minimus issue. Even if you found that a search engine should maintain your privacy, does that really matter with every other aspect of your internet usage doesn't, and the same data (and often even more intrusive) is being collected elsewhere?

I guess the next question, which I have not addressed yet, is SHOULD we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the internet, or in search in particular?

Ian

[Kal]

Just to move the topic away from privacy issues for a moment.

Don't you think it's rather interesting that the US government had no idea how to phrase their request to provide meaningful data? As Danny said in the Newsweek episode, they clearly had no idea that they should be requesting data with automated enquiries removed so it didn't skew results.

Can you imagine if they draft anti-porn legislation based on raw data containing those millions of WPG ranking reports run by SEOs with porn clients?

Let's hope they hire Danny as a special consultant to the CIA and FBI on search issues eh?

[projectphp]

Well, I for one can't wait for "Extraordinary Rendition of Data" as a way around what you wrote ian.

Originally Posted by dannysullivan

The Bush administration demanded last year that Google and other search engines turn over aggregate search information to help revive a child protection law. Google has refused to comply with the subpoena. Other search engines apparently have.

In particular, the Bush administration wanted one million random web addresses and records of all Google searches for a one week period. The government apparently wants to find out how much pornography shows up in online searches and how often people may seek it.

Here's a solution -

Why not set up internet access in the big prison systems across the U.S. and monitor the results from them? I think you would get more of an idea of how much porn shows up online and how often people may seek it from those results rather than the possibility of invading someone's privacy.

[projectphp]

<offtopic>I wonder how many prisoners search for "escape from jail"? Or maybe "escape from jail and meet newbile young women" is more the searches that the US gov want....

Reminds me of how Terry Waite, a hostage in Lebanon and a side story to Irangate (I love my gates), was in his cell, and he was handed reading material to keep him amused. The book? The great escape.

Anyhow, I best return you to your regularly sceduled serious debate</offtopic>

You raised some extremely valid points, mcanerin. Has anyone here read this rather topical article?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10968082/site/newsweek/

I hope the flag waving Republican who claims not to know anything of the US domestic spying programme will do so, I'd like to know his/her point of view.

[vayapues]

JAFO,

I read the article through twice. the first time, I thought, "did I miss something", so I read it again. Then I thought "Nope, guess I didn't".

I see nothing wrong, inappropriate, or otherwise. You and I both know that they are damned if the do, and damned if they don't. If there is another attack, (which there will be) everyone will say "Why didn't Bush do more, he had all this technology available, why didn't he monitor things more closely."

A few days ago, the Government arrested several Eco-terrorists who were responsible for many millions of dollars in property damage. If you don't investigate so called "threats" how will you ever track down criminals?

The Talon program was just that.

You know what the real problem with today's society is? A couple things. Firstly, no one studies history. They think that everything falls under the first amendment (which it doesn't) and that there are a whole bunch of freedoms that we are loosing, which we never actually had in the first place. Also, we are becoming so ridiculously politically correct, that we are more worried about not offending anyone, than we are about doing whats right.

The folks in the article you shared were demonstrating peacefully, (which of course is covered in the first amendment) and should not suffer any negative impact from having done so, and I honestly doubt that they did. Lets be honest MNS is as bias as any other network.

Just because the people at the protest were investigated, does not mean that is why they were investigated. In all likelihood, they were being watched for other reasons. Probably someone who was at the protest and who was also doing other suspicious things, didn't like that they were caught, and so they sent MSN an email. Does not sound like MSN did much research before they went to press.

I see no mention of sources, no background, etc.

It would be nice to know what really happened, rather than what people who want to take down the Pres say happened.

I don't see how the article supports or detracts from Google's Decision last week.

[andrewgoodman]

Originally Posted by PhilC

"essential liberty"? You consifer that the storing of a population's DNA in the fight against crime is giving up some "essential liberty"? What's so essential about not having your DNA profile stored? And what liberty would it deprive anyone of? Benjamin Franklin was as entitled to his view as anyone else, and there's nothing special about his view. But he was talking about essential liberty - we are not.

Where does it end, then? Would you like a kidney? "Do I hear a kidney?"

PhilC, have you heard of the term "Panopticon"? Are you familiar with Foucault's views on the matter?

[PhilC]

Don't be silly, Andrew - kidney indeed!

What objections could anyone (except criminals) have against the state storing everyone's DNA profile to combat crime?

As for privacy on the internet, Ian's excellent post nailed it - there isn't any privacy to defend. We can't have privacy when we interact with the outside world.

[projectphp]

What objections? Seriously? Come on Phil! If you can't use Google to answer a (rhetorical) question like that, humanity has no chance!

[PhilC]

What has searching Google got to do with it? I don't need searches on Google to form my views, thank you.

If you are not happy to help make our societies safer, you are entitled to that view, but there is no good reason not to have a DNA database when it would harm nobody and help a lot - no good reason at all. I think you'd sing a different tune if a family member became a victim, and the perpetrator was never found.

[bruhaha]

Originally Posted by JAFO

the flag waving Republican who claims not to know anything of the US domestic spying programme

The problem here is the use of the label "domestic spying program" --by political critics and many in the media-- to imply that the program is being used in a particular way, before determining exactly what the program in question is doing.

Most would agree that certain types of surveillance are good and necessary security measures. Spying on legitimate suspects and their contacts to try to glean evidence of terrorist plots is one thing; spying on one's political enemies is quite another. When people hear the term "domestic spying program" they are prone to think of the latter. But what's the evidence (at least so far) that any of this is happening? When someone produces credible evidence, by all means, let's pursue it!! But until then, I suggest we be more careful in our choice of terms.

Now, if asking people not to use loaded terms to imply we know something before the evidence has been offered is "flag waving" I guess I'm guilty.

[andrewgoodman]

Originally Posted by PhilC

Don't be silly, Andrew - kidney indeed!

What objections could anyone (except criminals) have against the state storing everyone's DNA profile to combat crime?

As for privacy on the internet, Ian's excellent post nailed it - there isn't any privacy to defend. We can't have privacy when we interact with the outside world.

I'm not sure where Ian's going. He has some legal views but I also note that he claims that marriage is a reason for not having privacy. Maybe I'd better go to law school to bone up on that one, and possibly run for office after that to ensure that the laws are changed, if that's indeed the case.

As for the "state storing DNA records," how far we've come. A country like America was founded on a healthy degree of suspicion vis-a-vis forms of centralized power. "But it's just DNA!" you might say. Not exactly the point. Let's agree that we are talking about a range of information gather activities that are being proposed based on a "law and order" agenda. There is a huge fallout on people, when that agenda gets pushed too far, including arbitrary searches and incursions, and including subtle shifts in the seriousness of certain kinds of crimes, including minor drug offenses. Have you checked how many people are incarcerated in the U.S.? And how many are in jail in other countries, for crimes of similar magnitude?

What you're potentially arguing for, if you keep following that agenda, is total surveillance of everyone, in order to catch "criminals." It's quite simple, I don't believe in the arbitrary extension of police powers, information gathering, and witch-hunts.

If you don't want to see the subtleties involved, perhaps it's just because you have a consistent party line in your mind that "liberals" are wrong about everything and that "the government" is always right.

Again: "the government" can turn bad, as history has shown. It's all too easy for me to sit here and say: "go ahead and take all my info, fingerprint me, put my DNA on file, and go through every private message I've ever sent and through every search I've ever done, because I have nothing to hide," -- because by and large, like most people, I don't.

But I also believe in the power of the citizenry, and in their rights against such arbitrary investigations before any crime has been committed. You may want to draw the line differently from me as to when we've entered some 1984-like "full surveillance society," but we have to agree, I hope, that there is a line somewhere. If we don't agree that this is a line that can be crossed, then we can't have this conversation.

Now as for private search records, and linking search behavior to people ACROSS ALL INTERNET SEARCHES, this is a prospect that I find terrifying. It doesn't surprise me, and nor would it surprise me if the gov't was monitoring my gmail messages or for that matter phone conversations. But no sir I do not believe it is their right to monitor such things just on the premise that there is a war on terrorism, child porn, drugs, or whatever the excuse du jour is for eroding privacy and using information for political gain. I would lobby vigorously against that, if it were my country.

The problem with your argument is, it could always hold true. What if listening devices were placed in every car, every home? If you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear, right?

Come on.

Now let's try an exercise. Imagine the following two by two grid, based on measurable aspects of citizens' current "civic orientations" (based on answers they might give to survey questions, measuring their behavior, etc.).

You've got the trust dimension - hi & lo.

Now the "efficacy" dimension - hi & lo.

Trust = how much trust does one have that government actors are abiding by the law, and acting in the best interest of the citizenry.

Efficacy = how much impact does one believe one has in terms of exercising their democratic voice / rights in the current political system. A component of this is knowledge about how to effect change institutionally.

High efficacy + high trust = a citizen or patriot. This is presumably a desirable state to be in, but depends on institutions being truly transparent, one's personal background, and the administration earning trust.

Low efficacy + high trust = a belonger, obedient person.

High efficacy + low trust = a rebel or dissident.

Low efficacy + low trust = alienated, dropout from the political process.

As you can see, in an environment of low trust, we cannot have a record high number of "citizens". We are likely to see dissidents and over time, more alienated disaffected folks.

In fact, my trust in the current administration is low, because I see the precedent of similar administrations using private information and spying for POLITICAL PURPOSES. In an intensely partisan environment forgive me for believing that there is something political in every request to up the level of information gathering across a wide swath of the citizenry, including listening to private phone conversations.

Evidently, for your reasons, you don't feel the same way. But at least we need to agree that there are principles involved and that privacy is something to value in some sense, and that governments and security agencies aren't representing us at all, if they're free to sift through information in their own way, discovering what they like, for kicks.

[dazzlindonna]

If you don't want to see the subtleties involved, perhaps it's just because you have a consistent party line in your mind that "liberals" are wrong about everything and that "the government" is always right.

Not necessarily true. I'm a big liberal, and I also pretty much assume the government is more often wrong (or corrupt). Which also means that I assume they already know or can find out any dang thing they want about me, whether they have the right to or not. However, I also assume it is what it is, and no amount of belly-aching or sign-waving is going to change that. There will always be corrupt people in office, and they will always do things that is not their right to do. Kick one out, you'll get another one in. (Hey, I live in Louisiana where this is firsthand knowledge). Defeatist thinking? yep, guess so.

In any case, if you've ever known first hand what it is like to watch criminals get away with heinous acts of violence (not at the person in some news story you read, but directly against you, or your daughter, or your son, or brother, or sister, or mother, or grandmother...), you would likely care much less about "potential" privacy invasions that the government "might" do somewhere in time. You would be wondering why the heck that DNA that was deposited upon your loved one couldn't be matched up, and the perpetrator couldn't be tracked down. You would be even more incensed, if that criminal then went on to harm your next door neighbor, and then your minister, and then your accountant, and on and on and on. One little DNA match might have avoided a lot.

Privacy? We ain't got none. Right to privacy? Sure, we have a right to it. But do we have it? Have we ever? Really? I seriously doubt it.

I'd much rather see some serial killer/rapist/jerk caught than worry about some sense of privacy that I never really had in the first place.

[bruhaha]

Originally Posted by andrewgoodman

as for private search records, and linking search behavior to people ACROSS ALL INTERNET SEARCHES, this is a prospect that I find terrifying.

First of all, please look back at the issue that started all this. As Danny has clearly stated, repeatedly, "the information [requested] is completely divorced from any personally identifiable data"

It doesn't surprise me, and nor would it surprise me if the gov't was monitoring my gmail messages or for that matter phone conversations.

Frankly, I doubt the government has any interest at all in your personal phone conservations, email, etc., unless of course you happen to be corresponding with someone already identified as or suspected of being a terrorist. Even if someone in the government did want to spy on everyone's private communications, where in the world would they get the resources to do so?!

But no sir I do not believe it is their right to monitor such things just on the premise that there is a war on terrorism, child porn, drugs, or whatever the excuse du jour is for eroding privacy and using information for political gain.

Well I suppose if we assume with you that all such things always being excuses --as if there were never any necessary or legitimate security needs (principally to try to protect real people from planned attacks)-- I'd have to agree with you. But most folks recognize that one of the major reasons for even having a government is to defend the people, and that there are therefore legitimate uses of such tools (even if there are also cases of abuse, which are NOT protected). And the courts have long and consistently disagreed with you that the government has the authority, indeed the constitutional responsibility, to use such means to protect the citizenry.

and using information for political gain.

This is another assumption you are tossing into the mix that only muddies the discussion. Is it possible for a government to do such a thing? Sure. And when there's good reason to believe that is happening, the matter should be pursued. But it is absurd to allege that every time the government taps phone calls, etc., it is on a political fishing expedition.

In fact, my trust in the current administration is low, because I see the precedent of similar administrations using private information and spying for POLITICAL PURPOSES. In an intensely partisan environment forgive me for believing that there is something political in every request to up the level of information gathering across a wide swath of the citizenry, including listening to private phone conversations.

Again, you are making rather large assertions about "political purposes", spying on many people (implication: all sorts of people, with no real justification) and the collecting of PRIVATE information. Where is your evidence for these things? What evidence do you have that any of this information is, in fact, being used for political purposes (by which I assume you meant to personally threaten or weaken a political opponent)? How do you know this is going on accross a wide swath of the citizenry? I'm sorry others' prior abuses of information gathering has you skittish, but that is not adequate reason to start leveling charges about current activities.

On the "privacy" issue, to return to the Google story, please note again, as Danny did, that this request did NOT involve collecting private, identifying information. (Also, incidentally, did you notice that the requests to Google, et.al., were not particularly covert?! Nor, for that matter were they "demands" or "subpoenas". . . .but I guess I don't expect the AP to check into such subtle details.)

[projectphp]

Again, you are making rather large assertions about "political purposes", spying on many people (implication: all sorts of people, with no real justification) and the collecting of PRIVATE information. Where is your evidence for these things? What evidence do you have that any of this information is, in fact, being used for political purposes (by which I assume you meant to personally threaten or weaken a political opponent)?

Falacy of the Burden of Proof. If someone wants to change the law, wants to take away my fredoms, the burden of proof that it is all Kosher lies with teh people attempting to take away the rights. So, what proof do you have, that the government will never ever over step the mark? What proof do you have that governments never do bad? And who will, as they say, watch teh watchers? And who will watch them?

Again, we need to establish, in any argument, whom the burden of proof lies on. In this case, the Burden Of Proof lies with those wishing to start collecting data, not with those oppossing it.

And in any case, Extraordnary Rendition, alone and in isolation, proves that the law, International or otherwise, isn't a major concern of the governemtn of the United States of America.

[unreviewed]

Andrew, good points, but consider the usefulness of a DNA database for the good of mankind. Think of all the useful health and disease information that could be produced with a cradle to grave DNA database.

The possibilities vs. the fear factor should be clear to you.