No, Thank You
It isn't enough that the government is spying on its own citizens. Now, the government doesn't want us to mind. That's the impression I got from this AP news report.
A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.
I don't think so.
It is not the government's concern what I buy with my money, what books I read, what I say on the phone or in emails. If the government is worried that I might be plotting a terrorist attack or fomenting insurrection, let them go before a judge, show probable cause, and obtain a warrant.
And it is even less the concern of corporations how I spend my money, what books I read, what I say on the phone or in emails. If I want them to know, I'll use one of their silly club cards. Otherwise, they should just back off.
And as to the doublespeak implied in Mr. Kerr's new and improved definition of "privacy," I would suggest he return to his fourth grade grammar class and open his dictionary. Nowhere does it say anything about government getting info and then "safeguarding" it. NOWHERE.
And another thing, why should I trust either the government or businesses that keep having their systems hacked (or stolen, or lost)? The track records of both in "safeguarding" any information is abysmal.
No. I will not change my definition of privacy.
And if Congress tries to do it for me with the new and improved FISA bill, then I will give serious consideration to fomenting a different kind of insurrection: one that calls on citizens fed up with having their civil liberties trampled to hit the streets in every town in the nation, including Washington, DC.
Enough, God Damn It. Enough.
A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.
I don't think so.
It is not the government's concern what I buy with my money, what books I read, what I say on the phone or in emails. If the government is worried that I might be plotting a terrorist attack or fomenting insurrection, let them go before a judge, show probable cause, and obtain a warrant.
And it is even less the concern of corporations how I spend my money, what books I read, what I say on the phone or in emails. If I want them to know, I'll use one of their silly club cards. Otherwise, they should just back off.
And as to the doublespeak implied in Mr. Kerr's new and improved definition of "privacy," I would suggest he return to his fourth grade grammar class and open his dictionary. Nowhere does it say anything about government getting info and then "safeguarding" it. NOWHERE.
And another thing, why should I trust either the government or businesses that keep having their systems hacked (or stolen, or lost)? The track records of both in "safeguarding" any information is abysmal.
No. I will not change my definition of privacy.
And if Congress tries to do it for me with the new and improved FISA bill, then I will give serious consideration to fomenting a different kind of insurrection: one that calls on citizens fed up with having their civil liberties trampled to hit the streets in every town in the nation, including Washington, DC.
Enough, God Damn It. Enough.
Labels: Domestic Spying, Fourth Amendment, Privacy
posted by Diane at 7:16 AM
5 Comments:
They're not going to stop are they? Yet these inside the Belt Way yahoos STILL can't see the "NEED" for impeachment.
Damn it, 1984 was NOT an instruction manual!
I saw that article -- front page of the New York Times this morning, as a matter of fact -- and I nearly lost it.
You are not going to make it all better by retroactively redefining what privacy means. Damn these people for pulling this shit and damn the media for propagating it.
Amen.
Ah, "The Handmaid's Tale"--remember when suddenly currency, actual cash, was made illegal for transactions? And only the cards could be used?
Then, suddenly, women's bank accounts were not available to them, only to their male "protectors"?
Damn. That book scared me more than "1984."
jawbone
If we can redefine "privacy" then we can also redefine... well, a lot of things, and that's not good.
Post a Comment
<< Home