Honest question: Why should I have an expectation of privacy with communications technology?

[patrice]

I didn't build this. I didn't finance the hardware. I didn't pay the engineers.

Is a street corner mine to do with as I wish?

No, I have to abide by what is more or less acceptable to the collective that created the street corner and one of the wishes of that collective is that I should do nothing with the street corner that harms those to whom the street corner belongs.

I know the internet and communications technology in general isn't exactly like that, but it is similar. It's a private and public partnership, any ownership I might have is as PART of the stock-holders, or part of the revenue sources that finance government in its collective responsibilities. In either case, I down own it myself, so why would I have a right to privacy with this collective resource?

Government isn't taking my right to privacy away from me. All I have to do to be private is to stay away from communications technology.

[Recursion]

1. I've always thought the government investment in the network had a lot of bearing too

I don't know that the courts have agreed.

[The Straight Story]

2. Here is why

Let's say you have google mail. Google admins can see that email, and no, you don't have privacy.

And let's say you use a verizon phone. Same deal with verizon.

Those two cannot share and collate your data (as you do have some privacy rights).

The government though says they can use all those different sources and put them into one basket.

Verizon has no idea who you mail or why, can't read it, etc. Google cares not who you call. So in all of that you do have some privacy overall.

Allowing one source access to it all is where people have the problems.

[treestar]

3. I would say the government could certainly be on the internet

or use it like anyone else, so that one could not really expect them not to be around on it.

People overhype the privacy thing, modern people don't even seem to know that public records are public. I've run into people who think land records are private!

[bahrbearian]

8. My phone calls are private not public. You are nuts.

[treestar]

81. Who said anything about your phone calls?

BTW, nobody gives a shit about them.

[sikofit3]

92. This has been unbelievable

The posts in recent days on this stuff is fucked up to see on the DU. We have officially been bombarded by infiltrators over this spy stuff. They are REALLY working over time to try and make this spy stuff on the American public seem OK. They must be spending a lot of money paying these people to do this and Snowden really hit a nerve and I can't wait to see what else is going to be released and the new talking points they are drumming up to tell us on here how it is ok and acceptable. We have to stay vigilant, and I think they will learn they have met their match with the true DUers on this site. However, it is unbelievable at the same time....

[villager]

4. So because you didn't even paper mills, or envelope glue, you have no right of privacy there either?

Man, the rationales for people willingly forfeiting their 4th Amendment protections are really getting.. astonishing.

[KittyWampus]

7. your post makes no sense at all.

[bahrbearian]

11. Well aren't you silly, Privacy whats all that about?

[villager]

22. I don't know. Many here seem to hate the concept now.

Making them well groomed citizens for the future!

[villager]

17. And your one-line, content-less snark of a reply isn't actually a "discussion"

Which is the kind of exchange that this board was originally designed to foment.

[KittyWampus]

19. that wasn't "snark". Your post LITERALLY makes no sense. Either you mistyped something

or you left something out.

[villager]

25. Hey, you typed LITERALLY in caps! Bravo!

Your posts, however, LITERALLY make less sense with each content-less reply.

[sibelian]

66. OK, pegged you and PLONK.

You've stopped calling everybody racist, at least.

[Mojorabbit]

75. The post makes perfect sense. nt

[99Forever]

89. Let me help with your lack of comprehension problem.

Perhaps the poster left out a word or two :

"So because you didn't even own paper mills, or manufacture envelope glue, you have no right of privacy there either?"

Get it now?

Happy to be of service.

[patrice]

20. The post office collects everything that is mailed & they do have safety criteria at least for

packages, so they ask questions.

Letters, not so much, so I get your point there, except that if there was justification to be concerned about a certain letter for certain reasons having to do with a crime, I guess there could be a warrant for that letter.

[leveymg]

52. Cell phones are the 21st Century "papers, and effects" the 4th Amend. say are secure. How quaint.

It also says, get an individualized warrant that identifies the persons to be seized.

[JaneyVee]

5. We don't even own the modems and remote controls either.

[bahrbearian]

14. We enter agreements with providers, called contracts.

I've never agree to having my government, control my access to communication.

[JaneyVee]

23. Apparently your provider did though.

[bahrbearian]

47. The it is not condoned by me, but Im sure You don't care as long as it a Dem.

[JaneyVee]

50. Mature.

[Agschmid]

51. It's odd to me...

That people are okay with corporations having this information but if the government wants... OH MY
GOD!

[Ms. Toad]

72. Two things -

First, when I enter into an agreement with the corporation I am receiving a benefit in exchange for a payment (often, these days, in the form of personal data). If I don't like exchange rate, or I'm not comfortable with the corporation having that data, I don't enter into the contract.

Loyalty cards are a perfect example. The store offers discounts (or lets you earn cash-back points). The price I pay for those discounts is letting the corporation track my personal spending habits. I know quite a few people who aren't happy with that exchange and give up the discount because the cost of sharing their personal data with the corporation is too high. Other agreements work similarly, but loyalty cards are an easy example to use for illustration

The government has not entered into an agreement to provide me with value in exchange for my data, and will not allow me to choose to opt out.

Second, while a corporation may use my data for all sorts of profit making ventures (or even to figure out how to extract more money from me) it does not have the ability to use that information to deprive me of my liberty. The government does.

[Agschmid]

86. Well I'd argue this point...

The government has not entered into an agreement to provide me with value in exchange for my data, and will not allow me to choose to opt out.

Things taxes pay for... Although you never signed an agreement it is likely you are an American citizen who also likely pays taxes.

Here is the value the government provides:
- CDC
- Dept of Health and Human Services
- Military protection
- Education
- Transportation Networks
- Communication Networks/GPS
- If you live in the TVA area then most likely your power
- etc...

Seems like you are being provided some value? And if the contract is not to your liking then vote to get someone else in office, donate money to get someone else in office, volunteer to get someone else in office. Remember this is a democracy and you will not always be happy with everything he government does... But you most certainly if you are a citizen are in some form of agreement with the government just if you were born here you did not have to do the oath.

[Agschmid]

87. Here is naturalization oath...

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Also to your previous point I'd add two things you can opt out by as I said working in an election period to change policies. Also you could opt out by renouncing your citizenship. First one seems like the better option?

[Ms. Toad]

93. Just because the people we elect have enacted laws

which require the government to provide certain services, does not mean it is an agreement I have entered into a specific agreement with the government - which I could choose to enter into or not - to exchange personal data for some specific benefit.

A closer analogy would be an individual recipient of TANF - who agrees to provide family data in exchange for food stamps, etc. That individual could choose not to access the TANF program if they do not believe the assistance they receive is worth giving the government the personal data about their family.

[bahrbearian]

29. Your a fool if you never bought your own Modem.

And you can buy your own remotes, for what ever thats worth.

[JaneyVee]

48. Why buy my own modem, my service provider provides me with one. Same with remotes.

[bahrbearian]

68. Ok if thats what you think

[marions ghost]

6. "staying away from communications technology"

is not realistic.

[bahrbearian]

70. No it is realistic if the Government is not allowed to Spy,

[marions ghost]

88. I was responding to the statement

that if we want privacy we should stay away from all forms of e-communications. Which is a dumb suggestion, obviously not helpful.

I agree with you.

[MotherPetrie]

9. Because OBAMA is president!

You do not ever question what happens on his watch.

[villager]

18. If you want 4th Amendment protection, you really just want Palin to be President!

Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.

Etc.

[patrice]

32. Because Obama is president you do nothing but question everything on his watch . . . You know,

it is possible for people to disagree with you, or me, just because they understand things differently than you or I do whether it has anything to do with Obama or not.

I know that. Do you?

Or must we all understand these things alike and isn't insistence that we think alike fascism?

[MotherPetrie]

63. You don't even realize your post is an endorsement of fascism.

[patrice]

65. How do you know what I realize and what I don't without asking? Are you prejudiced? nt

[patrice]

71. If there's ONLY one way to understand something & that way just somehow happens to be yours* that

is pretty much the essence of fascism.

*rhetorical you

[Ed Suspicious]

10. Mail Fraud. When I use the public/private resource that is the US Postal Service, I have an

expectation of privacy. My communications are my own through that system which in many was is analogous to the telephonic or electronic communications.

[evlbstrd]

12. Because of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Why is that not obvious?

[truedelphi]

16. Amazing tht it took eleven replies before yours, which is the real pay dirt. n/t

[villager]

21. Many here have been dutifully led to despise their once-held protections under the Bill of Rights

Since it no longer fits in with their new agenda.

[patrice]

35. If it were that simple, why is there so much legislation about the Constitution?

Isn't it pretty obvious that the Constitution doesn't apply the same to every situation/persons in this country?

And if it had to be amended at all, doesn't that mean it isn't perfect, so if it wasn't perfect when it was amended, why should we consider it perfect now? Aren't there just a few people who want it amended for womens' rights? & to end corporate personhood?

[evlbstrd]

45. Do you have a problem with the Fourth? nt

[patrice]

53. No. I have a problem with preventable death & suffering. Do you? & Even if you don't, do you have a

right to decide that for others?

[evlbstrd]

61. They are not mutually exclusive.

[patrice]

64. Not sure what you mean, but if you're referring to how a fully conscious, honest, active, responsibl

e, ethical, appropriately altruistic, self-disciplined consumer citizenry could function in such a way as to prevent the elements that add up to different kinds of terrorism, I agree in theory and I hope they are out there growing and developing themselves, meanwhile, our history as energy hogs and militarists and social and economic injustices here at home add up to trouble, so we need time . . . watchful alert time in which we protect not only rights but also lives.

[evlbstrd]

73. I'm not arguing with you.

The rights of privacy and against illegal search and seizure seem pretty basic. I don't know how you conflate that with consumerism, environmental degradation and genocide. Protecting rights is protecting lives.

[patrice]

76. Ah, the word of the day, "conflate". Well, things do have connections, whether it's convenient to

recognize those connections or not.

I agree though, basically, protecting rights does protect lives, but it isn't the sum total of protecting lives, sometime we really do need to know what's going on with certain kinds of persons who have no right to do things that get other people hurt or dead.

My reference to those other human elements was an attempt to recognize where risks come from and how we play a part in creating those risks no matter how much we can also blame government and if We the People would stop doing, or not doing, the stuff that adds up to things like Shock & Awe maybe there'd be way less reason to collect phone numbers.

[loyalsister]

57. True

It has been modified, interpreted, reinterpreted, and interpretations have been overturned.
It is usually related to our cultural norms. Forced sterilization was once considered constitutional. There was a massive cultural movement that led to it.
Maybe we can look for this ridiculous war on terror to subside and a more liberal SC.

[patrice]

74. Not to mention an appx 200 year head start in our economy granted to propertied white males.

which head start turned into the corporate persons who now use our communications technology to do things like leaking this and that intelligence in order to railroad us into invading Iraq.

[kenny blankenship]

13. A perfect Parsons.

You take the cake.

[patrice]

40. I'm puzzled by the risks that some of us seem so comfortable with. That's risks to other people's

lives. Maybe that's the explanation, OTHER people's lives, so who gives a crap. That's what it looks like when I ask people what being wrong about this is worth. Perhaps you can tell me more about that. Do you deny that there are any risks?

[patrice]

46. Are there risks?

[kenny blankenship]

49. The generation that crafted the 4th amendment knew about risks.

They were a new republic, with an enemy in Britain to the north and an enemy in Spain to the south. France held territory to their west. They knew the possibility was there that any of these powers could promise rulership over America to one of their number who would betray us into their hands. They were surrounded not by phantom threats, but by outposts of Europe's great imperial powers. Invasions, intrigues and plots were all on the menu.

They adopted the fourth amendment ANYWAY.

Ask yourself if you are not a wormlike coward compared to them?

[patrice]

56. How do you guess Saddam Hussein attracted the attention of Donald Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney?

The leader of the very minority tribe, how did he get the respect of other Iraq factions that eventually turned into deals with us? Is it not possible that especially his early years were built on PRIVATE arms sales? What about the white phosphorous he used against the Kurds at the end of Gulf I? Who sold that to him? Could phone records have had anything to do with Valerie Plames work?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. By shaking hands to secure dual-use contracts for chemical weapons.

[patrice]

59. Do you know your contempt is a little weird? but . . . I live my life. Not theirs. My conscience

is clear, because it is my own, not borrowed from others.

[patrice]

77. 1. That was a 4th Amendment for propertied white males. 2. They didn't know about the internet or

communications' technology.

[patrice]

78. Is this what I need to do to avoid being "a wormlike coward"?

http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm

[kenny blankenship]

79. I think you're pretty locked in at this point

but keep flailing if you want.

[rrneck]

15. Your street corner analogy is interesting.

You have the right to occupy that street corner and associate with whomever you wish. While there has been a lot of attention paid to the fourth amendment, I don't recall seeing much commentary about the first.

In this day and age it would be impossible to mobilize any group of people without electronic communications. People "go" to places on the internet more than they go to the supermarket. Interpretations of the bill of rights have to keep up the times, and it seems to me that in this case metadata should be as protected as content. The all too cozy relationship between big business and government combined with the amount of information business has about us should give us pause.

[Pholus]

24. Awesome!

I asked a question about how far you'd be willing to see domestic surveillance go in an OP this morning and you're the very first person to hint that you'd be totally fine with trolling all electronic communication looking for evidence of wrongdoing whether it is for "national security" or even jaywalking.

Congratulations. I guess...

Personally, the damned phone and internet bills had better be substantially discounted if everything gets logged because I certainly DO pay for both of them each month -- I do not consider the amounts of money insignificant. And I expect discretion.

[villager]

26. Silly retro consumer. Imagining that paying for a service means service providers...

...should adhere to rules of conduct for the democracy/economy in which they flourish.

What kind of good corporate citizen are you?

[Pholus]

28. Drats. What re-education center do I need to book reservations at?

I obviously need a refresher!

[villager]

31. Yes! Because now "Underground" means "Agreeing to Any Surveillance the Powerful Want"

Wouldn't the French "Underground" have been proud of us here!?

[Pholus]

33. Well, I fully do expect that if/when the pendulum swings back....

this unfortunate epoch will be forgotten as we find new outrages together.

Like we did in 2002-2005...

[villager]

34. A thing is only bad depending on who does it, not because of the thing itself!

Lewis Carroll could have told you that!

[bahrbearian]

36. Your too funny

[Pholus]

38. Only cause the only thing left to do is laugh...

crying gets boring.

[bahrbearian]

39. I know thats all we have left.

[patrice]

44. Well then, you INFER incorrectly. My point is based upon collective desires & expectations for a

collectively "owned" resource, which desires and expectations, unlike you, I do not assume extend to completely unlimited searches, but do include enough searching to provide protection for the collective "owners" of that resource.

[Pholus]

58. You certainly didn't state any limits your searches.

And that is EXACTLY why the court rulings about NSA surveillance will remain secret.

If acceptable, they would extend to normal activities as easily as the oh-so-secret ones. That would never fly. Heck, it even got Ashcroft to think twice.

Why are you more certain about this than Ashcroft was? He was NOT one of the good guys.

[patrice]

62. Sorry, I was working on what was "more or less acceptable to the collective owners" of the street

corner. I should have repeated that assumption relative to the technology too.

[dkf]

27. Because you have a constitution and a right to privacy.

[bahrbearian]

37. No body ever told me that, WTF

[dkf]

42. Sad sad sad. We've forgotten how its supposed to work.

[Trekologer]

41. The SC already ruled that you don't have an expectation of privacy of who you communicate with

You have no expectation of privacy for the phone metadata (who you call and when). In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the phone metadata is not protected by the 4th amendment. Same goes with the outside of an envelope: the contents are protected but the addresses and postmark are not.

[dkf]

43. Bunch of bozos.

Look how shortsighted they were.

[sibelian]

67. ah HA.

THAT'S the case that needs overturned.

THANK YOU.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

54. The U.S. Constitution, in particular the 4th amendment of the bill of RIGHTS

Something that man has struggled, and died for, for millenium.

And just because you are walking down a public sidewalk doesn't give the government the right to search your pockets.

And it follows that just because you are surfing the web the government has a right to spy on you.

But most importantly see the subject line of this post.

[think]

55. When was Booz Allen elected to be my government?

I didn't even know who the fuck they were or that the Carlyle Group owned them until Snowden's story broke...

[Llewlladdwr]

60. Do people living in public housing have a right to privacy? nt

[patrice]

69. Houses have a different purpose from phones & the internet. That difference is the precise

reason that the public invests, to provide relatively private places for people to live. If we treated public houses the same way we treat phones & the internet, that would ruin the purpose of having invested in the houses in the first place.

Are public houses different in re privacy than private ones? My house can be searched with a warrant if someone can make the legal requirement to establish that it has something to do with a crime.

[Pholus]

85. Really? Cause it sounds like a direct analogy that justifies harrassing public housing residents.

The resident of public housing did not build it. They didn't finance the materials. They didn't pay the engineers.

Is a publically financed house free to do with as the occupant wishes?

It is unacceptable to many people (Rethugs to be sure) that they helped pay for this housing and that the privilege might be abused by the undeserving. They don't want people with criminal pasts, "laziness" or current drug use to benefit from the house.

So, your premise is that it is well within the rights of the collective to place a series of rules about what is acceptable.

One of those rules might be that no-one with a criminal past may use public housing.
Another would be a requirement that no warrant is needed to search such a house. I can even justify this via the 4th because lets face it, the house is not "theirs" cause it belongs to the collective.
Yet another would be regular mandatory drug testing of all occupants.
And since I actually don't enjoy typing lists of requirements on the unfortunate, they must have a job or be evicted.
Oh hell, why not. Let's keep going. Get knocked up? Evicted.

The residents do not own public housing by themselves, why do they have a right to privacy with a collective resource?

Government isn't taking my right to privacy away from me. All I have to do to be private is to find somewhere else to live.

[TheKentuckian]

80. The communications aren't public nor in public domain.

They are addressed to a specific receiver and cannot be read/heard/seen by any member of the public except the person the targeted communication is sent to.

Often these communications are password protected, on secured networks, encrypted, and specifically protected and secured for the express purpose of privacy.

Ownership of infrastructure is very limited in impact, you have a right to be secure in your home even if you rent.

It is also on you (if this your position) to overcome the assumption of privacy, you would have the burden of proof that the technology makes any difference. Good luck with that and how the hell do you or the people benefit from such a perspective?

This is not to say that some domains are public or "town square" in nature but we aren't really talking about that kind of thing at all, are we? We are talking logically private by any previously understood definitions. Our phone calls, emails, VOIP, I'M, Skype, cell, text, whatever like one has to own the post office or a courier.

What is the desperate need here? Who benefits? Who pays? What the hell kind of dystopia are you trying to build or at least eagerly accept?

[Egalitarian Thug]

82. "Honest" questions do not consist of conclusive position statements. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

83. And that conclusive position statement

is something that hardly any of us can do in this day and age, especially when our livelihoods may depend on using communication technology.

[Egalitarian Thug]

84. These are the same people that rioted over busing, joined with the moral majority,

vote against sexual equality, and work tirelessly to support their masters. Disingenuous or just plain stupid, they are the millstones that slow all progress in every area.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

These are the people that read that quotation and see no problem with what it describes.

[Orrex]

90. I have a related honest question:

Has there ever been a surveillance technology available that governments didn't use against their own citizens?

It seems obvious that any surveillance technology that arises will immedately be deployed internationally if possible but domestically without delay. It may not be desirable, but it would be unrealistic, based on all of recorded history, to expect otherwise.