We seem so surprised that our privacy can be compromised.

[MineralMan]

I don't understand that at all. A thoughtful person would understand that if they post their personal information on the Internet, it will not remain private. From providing your credit card number to online retailers and companies like Paypal to posting photos of yourself in a compromising situation on Facebook, we constantly expose our private information to view.

We do the same with our political beliefs and ideas. DU, for example, is completely transparent to public view, and that means that anyone who wants can see what you wrote here. "But I use an anonymous screen name!" Yes, but it's not easy to keep that screen name anonymous. It takes a lot of effort. Most people use the same screen name on multiple sites, and inadvertently disclose their location, interests, and other details in things like profiles and messages they post.

Some people maintain a certain amount of privacy, but many don't even try. In most cases, about an hour of Googling can usually turn up the actual identity of most screen names. Twitter, Facebook, and other public places are even more transparent. We complain when our private information is discovered, but we continue to post it everywhere, with only the thinnest veneer of anonymity.

Google, for example, indexes DU constantly. Make a post here, and the title of the post will appear at the top of Google searches that use the exact wording of that title in minutes. Search for your screen name and the DU URL, and you can find every post you've ever made on DU on Google. What you have disclosed about yourself is open to view by anybody. Post a photo of yourself on DU, and it will be quickly available to people searching for your screen name on Google. Use that image to search Google Images, and a list of everywhere that exact image is posted on the Internet will pop right up. Is that image connected anywhere on the Internet with you real name? I'll bet it is. People who know that still post their photos here, but don't care. They know that Internet anonymity is largely a myth.

Privacy is important, but it's also important that we protect our own privacy to whatever extent we feel is justified. It's not just the government that is interested in us. In fact the government isn't much interested in us, anyhow. It already has plenty of data about its citizens. Worry more about corporations who are looking for information about consumers. They're the ones who are really using the transparency of the Internet to assemble data about individuals. They're the ones to worry about. The government has many ways to find out about us, if they feel that there's a reason to do so. Mostly, the government doesn't give a damn about your private information. They already have it, and have been collecting it since before the Internet and cell phones existed.

Protect your privacy as best you can, and to the degree you feel appropriate. But realize that privacy is pretty much a myth for anyone who uses today's technology. That loss of privacy is part of the technology. It's built into it, and we eagerly adopt that technology. That's reality. That's the world we inhabit.

[Bonobo]

1. Not surprised. You're confusing issues.

It is easy to open my mailbox and take my mail and read it.

That does not make it okay.

Should my correspondence online with my wife, doctor, lawyer, accountant not have the same protection as junk mail?

The Mr. Pragmatism thing is wearing thin. It doesn't excuse it.

Taking another's mail is a federal crime whether my mailbox is locked or not.

[MineralMan]

2. I'm in no way saying that it's OK. It's not.

I'm saying that it happens despite it not being OK. It happens frequently. A federal crime? Yes, but a federal crime that is ignored almost entirely. Reality bites.

That's not pragmatism. It's reality. Being aware of reality is important, I think.

[Bonobo]

5. It is also important to forcefully demand that this not become the new normal.

Our party stood AGAINST such behavior in the past.

It is the OTHER side of the isle that was the one that trumpets the need for this kind of security state, freedom and privacy in exchange for safety.

If we capitulate, if we give up the fight simply because it is our guy and we want to circle the wagons, then what hope is there that it will NOT be the new normal.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It does not have to be accepted as okay. But WE must be the ones who tell our party so.

Sadly, I see little hope for that with many of the attitudes revealed here on DU.

[MineralMan]

10. Our party most certainly did not stand against it.

In fact, Democrats joined in the voting to make all of this possible.

We can demand whatever we want. Our demands carry exactly as much weight as they carry, which is not much.

We should say that it's not OK, and I've been doing that for years. But, we have to watch closely, because it's going to continue, despite our protests and demands. Being aware is smart.

The door has not simply been opened. It has been removed and sent to the landfill. Then, the wall it was on has been torn down.

[Bonobo]

12. In the wake of 9/11, this is true.

But in general, yes, the Democrats stand ideologically against it.

[MineralMan]

15. Actually, it goes back to the Cold War era.

Discussions about this kind of data gathering were going on even in the 1960s, in anticipation of technology that would develop. The foundation was laid in the 60s. I was there. It wasn't possible then, but it was eagerly anticipated and planned for. Development of the capabilities went on apace with the development of the technology

Democrats then, as now, understood what was going to be possible, and funded the research and development. The cold war demanded it, so it happened.

The door was opened and it was never closed. Now, there's no door at all. Just air. There are no plans to rebuild that door or close it.

9/11 happened. That was the end of any real chance for opposition to succeed. The reality we have is the reality that began 50 years ago, when the possibilities were first raised.

[Voice for Peace]

40. thanks so much for your pov on this.

I'm a little baffled by all the uproar but maybe
it's a matter of an idea whose time has come,
like medical pot and gay marriage... out with
the patriot act and its many intrusions.

At the same time (as I just wrote in another
post below or above, someplace here..) I do
see the value of such a system in this current
climate of 'terrorists' domestic and foreign.
I don't mind if they want to do it using
phone numbers.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Call me cynical, but I don't know whether that will work.

Right now there is a big uproar about this issue (as there should be). So maybe some legislation will get passed purporting to limit the government's access to phone and other records. I don't think this will happen because the GOPers and some Dems like the Information State, because, you know, terror! But anyhow, let's say such a law actually is passed, and we all breathe a huge sigh of relief and go back to texting about our sex lives on our cell phones and telling everybody on Facebook about our colonoscopies.

But what if the NSA just keeps doing what it's been doing (whatever that is; we aren't even sure about that)? Since it's all totally double top secret, how would we ever know? Maybe they don't even tell the President unless some terror thing comes up where we have to invade someplace, and maybe not even then; they could just say they got some information. These intelligence agencies seem to operate by their own rules and they don't tell anybody anything. So it could just keep going on and we won't know.

So we can demand that it stop, but how will we know that it really did?

[Voice for Peace]

45. exactly.. if they do it well, we won't.. so on that account

my first priority in life is to be happy, no matter
what else may be going on. It will all be over
soon enough.

[Voice for Peace]

37. I'm currently & mostly puzzled by it all, more than anything

I see the value of having systems in place for the
purpose of tracking & thwarting evildoers domestic
or foreign. There are many of them, so it's valid in
my opinion to have a way to trace these connections.

How is my own privacy being violated? I'm not clear
about this.

I know there are risks of bad arrests and wrong
assumptions being made, and innocents getting
caught up in such things. Is that what this is
about?

Nobody's listening in on my calls, apparently. Even if
they were, they would be

I do support this President, on bottom line principle,
that I believe he is a man of conscience and
capable of rapid evolution. They say power corrupts
EVERYBODY but it remains to be seen. If he were
without daughters, dog and wife, perhaps he
would be corruptible. But they are his mirror
conscience and he can never escape them.

At the same time, everybody seems so upset, so
there must be something really terrible going on.

[FarCenter]

41. Internet email is not private

It was never designed to be private and it is not today.

There are more secure email systems that can be used by closed communities.

No computer connected to the public internet is secure. You need an "air gap" and strict procedures for data transferral to any secure system.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. I have never understood why people post the most intimate things on the Internet.

Especially Facebook, which kind of horrifies me - their "privacy" controls are pretty minimal, and anybody you "friend" can learn whatever personal details you put on your page. And your 300 "friends" aren't necessarily your friends. I opened a Facebook account so I could communicate regarding a specific situation (a person I knew who went missing) but after reading some of the stuff other people put on their pages I declined to add anything to mine.

We surrender a lot of personal information - some of it voluntary, some not - just by using the Internet and related electronic devices. Unfortunately, unless we want to go off the grid entirely, Pandora's box with our personal stuff in it is open; the cat is out of the bag; whatever metaphor you like. I don't like it but I don't know what to do about it, because the technology exists to do these things and therefore it will be used, by governments for power and by private entities for profit.

[MineralMan]

8. I post bupkis on Facebook, really.

I use it to communicate with family and friends about stuff that only matters to us. I don't even like Facebook, and check it just once a day to see if there's any family or friend things I need to know. I did sign up for my 50th Reunion Facebook page, but have only posted a couple of old stories that would make people I knew in HS laugh.

As for the rest, I use online banking and shopping, etc. Just like most people. I worry a little about it, but only use my small-balance internet checking account and small limit credit card for purchases. I don't expose any of my primary accounts.

As far as privacy is concerned, I found out a few years ago that I had blown that long ago. Some guy with a grudge against me went a'Googling and figured out who I was in real life. I got some phone threats and the moron contacted a couple of clients and tried to poison those relationships. I cleared that up, and presented the offender with a complete background check I had done on him, after a brief Internet search turned up his personal data. He left me alone after that. Now, I don't bother with any pretense of privacy, and deliberately expose my identity in many ways. I don't care if someone looks up who I am, so I make it easy for them. Nobody has bothered to do that for several years.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Who are these "we" that you claim are surprised?

[Rex]

7. Good question.

Nothing the fed govt does surprises me anymore. Been that way for decades.

[MineralMan]

9. Just read the threads. Lots of people are surprised.

You're smart. You're not surprised. Neither am I. Many others are surprised.

[morningfog]

28. Upset about policy does not equal surprise.

[MineralMan]

34. That's quite true.

Many are still surprised that such things go on. I've read the threads.

[Zorra]

6. Not surprised at all. I'm furious that an *ostensibly* Democratic administration would

permit such a thing without any acceptable reasonable explanation for this action.

Has widespread spying on us, and rudely invading the privacy of US citizens become the norm for our government?

It certainly appears that it has.

[woo me with science]

36. This, of course, is the correct answer,

but the Corporate Brigade appears to have decided that their best hope here is to try to argue that being unsurprised about something is incompatible with being outraged about it.

By that logic, why should anyone have thrown a hissy fit about slavery during Lincoln's term? After all, that had gone on for a LONG time, and absolutely everybody knew about it! And it was certainly possible to avoid being captured if you took precautions...

This is the asinine, manipulative response we have come to expect from the morally bankrupt policy vault of the Third Way.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Another pointless gust of wind

[MineralMan]

17. Yes. Whatever you say.

I notice that you opened the thread, though, and posted in it.

[whatchamacallit]

21. The mistake of opening it

doesn't validate its quality.

[MineralMan]

24. True enough.

The OP stands or falls on its own merits. You're pretty smart, it seems.

Thanks for continuing to reply to my posts!

[Bluenorthwest]

22. I notice people slow down to look at car wrecks too.

nt

[MineralMan]

23. So they do.

Sometimes, they stop and try to assist, too.

It's always good to hear from you in threads I start.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. To protect privacy, it's best to change one's usernames between different websites

You've probably already realized that by now though.

[The Link]

18. heh.

[MineralMan]

26. heh, yourself...

[MineralMan]

19. Actually, I've been using the same screen name

on multiple sites for many years. As I said, I don't attempt to maintain any pretense of anonymity. That trick never works.

I'm still using the same screen name, with complete comprehension of what that means. I've always known what using the same screen name meant. That was my choice. A few people have tried to use that in some way to bother me. It didn't. It doesn't. Here I am.

[The Link]

16. I appreciate the center-right view of this issue.

All sides should be heard on the matter of government spying on it's own citizens.

[MineralMan]

20. Do you? I don't think you know my position at all.

My post was descriptive. That's all. It has nothing to do with my position. It's just a description of real situations.

[morningfog]

29. LOL. "All posts written by me are my opinion only."

[MineralMan]

31. And so they are. That's why it's in my signature line.

Thanks for noticing.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

25. I've assumed they've been doing this all along

But then again, I'm not hopelessly naive to the ways of the world.

More than likely, this has been going on since the NSA had the technological ability to do it which almost certainly predates Obama, Bush the Unready and perhaps, Bush the Elder. We'll never know.

Also, they likely have knowledge extraterrestrial life that has visited this planet and aren't telling anyone. Where is the outrage over that?

[MineralMan]

27. It's a fair assumption, I'm sure.

Hence my surprise at the reaction to this situation.

[morningfog]

30. So, you are the one actually surprised.

[MineralMan]

32. Is that not what I said? I'm surprised that

people are not more aware of this. I'm not at all surprised that it is going on. I'm asking why others are surprised that it is.

You're not reading for comprehension today, I think.

[jberryhill]

43. It's the original reason for the National Radio Quiet Zone

[Autumn]

33. If anyone is surprised that is BS. Anyone paying attention has known

Bush started this shit early in his residency.

[MineralMan]

35. It's lots of folks not paying attention.

Lots.

[BlueCheese]

38. First, part of this has to do with phone calls.

I do think that people can reasonably think that who they talk to is private information. The phone companies know it, because they have to. But one can expect that without some probable cause, they wouldn't share that with anyone.

As for the Internet, yes, we all know everyone leaves a trail behind. But again, I would think that without probable cause, the government should not be able to force Internet companies to disclose all the pieces of it behind.

In the pre-Internet days, you left a trail by leaving your house, driving to work, going to the store, etc. I suppose it would have been possible for someone to follow you around and know where you've been and what you did. But it would be wrong to say that you should have expected to lose your privacy by leaving your house. Today, it's dangerous to say you should lose your privacy for talking on the phone or sending an email.

[MineralMan]

39. You shouldn't lose your privacy. The fact is that you do.

See, I never said that anyone "should" lose any privacy. I said that they "should" be aware that they already lost it. There is a difference.

The thing is that the law allows the government, with a court order, to do this. What the government can do, it almost certainly will do. Being aware of that is important. Changing it is another thing, altogether. I think it will be very difficult to change it. This has its start way back in the Cold War days. Changing it will require a major change in Congress. As much as I'd like to see that, for many reasons, I'm not seeing it happening anytime soon.

[LWolf]

42. .

http://disinfo.com/2013/06/dont-worry-about-obama-spying-on-you-just-kidding-you-should-worry/

[MineralMan]

44. Thanks. I saw that earlier.

This is a hot topic for web bloggery from all sides, for sure.

[LWolf]

46. I saw your post

and this post together at the top of the front page; the coincidence struck me.

[MineralMan]

47. I went and read that blog when I first saw the link.

It's no wonder a lot of people are writing about this topic. It's big news to most people, for sure. The information, however, about these capabilities has been around for a long time. Someone leaked a classified court order, which put this on the front page. There have, no doubt, been many such classified court orders in the past, and will be many more in the future, I'm sure.

People who have followed all of this for years were not surprised in any way that it is going on. It's been going on for some good while. I remember the TIA discussions clearly, and had been following the government's use of data access and mining since the late 1960s. It's been a slow, steady process of being able to access more and more data. That capability has been used throughout that time, as the capability developed.

The leaked court order just moved it to the front page, where people who hadn't known about this were suddenly presented with something that had been going on for a long time.

Anyone who's been watching already knew, instinctively that what is possible to do is almost always done. FISA itself is all about doing it.