Slashdot Mirror
CNN Talks WIth ACLU Tech Maven Barry Steinhardt
muon1183 writes " CNN interviews Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU's cyberchief and former staff laywer for the EFF. Steinhardt speaks on his concerns about current and upcoming legislation and its impacts on your civil liberties. It's good that this is finally making the mainstream media."
Ce premier poste est dédié à Denis Papin !
Smile, don't click...
I wouldn't go and say this is a good thing just yet. They could easily change "It is a violation of all that is good and just" into "It is all good."
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Ce second poste est dédié à Jean-Pierre Marielle !
Smile, don't click...
As long as people are not willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for a temporary sense of safety...
Dr. White writes that in the recent report from Science Weekly, Dr. Brooks found some chimps to be smarter than Negroes.The full report will be published in December. Also a genetic link between Negro genes and idleness.
Then I remembered a show which I had seen on television. Last summer I watched a PBS program about Koko the gorilla using sign language and so on, and among other things, they said this ape had an IQ of 85. The first thing that came to mind was the average American black IQ as mentioned in Charles Murray's The Bell Curve. Surely I couldn't have been the only one to take note, but I figured that if anyone complained, the newsmedia wouldn't respond because it would be just too damned embarrassing to publicize if the nignogs demanded that this segment be edited out.
Here's more info about ACLU's campaign to challenge new security laws, called Keep America Safe and Free
It's interesting to note their views that in order to keep America safe, you do not necessarily have to take away freedom.
More info about the controversial PATRIOT ACT.
Best of luck to him!
Once the opponents come 'into the mainstream' then as night follows day the pro-legislation campaigners will start shouting their side of the corner. No doubt they will shout louder and as the mainstream always works, the person who shouts loudest usually wins over the public at large.
Perhaps when some of the politicians calling for enhanced surveillance get caught on terahertz candid camera getting spanked by underaged hookers we will finally see some saner legislation protecting privacy.
I'm not trolling.
I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?
It certainly doesn't bother me.
What the arguments?
Why should I be worried?
I'm quite willing to change my mind!
*insert Benjamin Franklin quote here*
I'm not as down on the likelihood of winning as Steinhardt is. Cryptography remains essentially unsolvable in bulk.
Unfortunatley, the borderless nature of much technology means there's a scary point to be made that while the next ten years of surveilance technology is unlikely to be all that useful against sophisticated terrorist, it'll be perfectly effective against broke domestic dissidents.
ACLU? but they're LIBERAL! we can't endorse them on Libertarian Slashdot, it goes against the groupthink!
Here's a longer interview with Barry from Wired
They also have some nice information on 'Carnivore' and 'Magic Lantern', spy technologies that the FBI is using on Americans.
Scary stuff.
Who cares about civil liberties? This is war people, get over it. The government has to crack down like this to preserve our rights. Less temporarily is always better than none. You all want this to be Bagdad or something?
...for turning war into entertainment and drawing more young americans into the military. The average education level in our country is so low. The young ppl look at the 3D models of battle cruisers and air planes and believe it's something like CounterStrike2 or whatever their pathetic intellect may make of it.
Welcome to the real world. Lawmakers, authorities etc are people, not ideal machines. Suppose there was somebody in FBI who hated you and your family, just imagine what all could he do if he had information about your whole life....Or a more grimmer scenario... Somebody in the police wants to harm you.... some govt employee who has acess to this database desparately needs money... so if you are rich enough he could compile a list of the rich and money in their banks and sell them to mafia so that they can demand extortion
Well these are the "real" issues, then come the moral issue of what right does the govt have to know of who I am. We dont want a police state you seeMy Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
He Hosts under a UK IP Block! The Whitehouse is hosted Here!
Looks like Georgie Boy is looking for an exit plan
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Mainstream media, huh?
I've been flipping back and forth between this cnn and fox chic in Aman Jordan for my main stream media.
The arguments seem to boil down to "trust" and "possible misuse".
Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.
It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.
Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any government surveillance as anybody else.
If the NSA employee could discover something about you in the future and use it against you; well that's a bummer; but there is just as much chance of something being found and used against that NSA employee.
I think I trust my Government. They're elected after all; the big caveat being that the majority of what is the "Government" is the civil service; which of course does not change with elections. I'm sure "Yes Prime Minister" has been seen outside the UK.
Even Civil Servants fall in love, and have cats and dogs as pets.
We've also had the secret police in western countries for years; and probably still have departments that are "even more secret than the secret ones that we know about"; but so what.
I think people need to chill out a bit.
You complain about YOUR liberties being taken away. You think you have it bad? How about being forced to work back-breaking labor...All for the profit of the white man. How about being torn away from you family and being brought to a strange land so you can work like an animal. You see, this is the legacy of slavery in America that continues through today.
How about waking up everyday and being judged by the color of your skin? How about not being able to get a job because your name is too black sounding. Sure, send us African Americans off to fight your battles overseas. Continue the legacy of the black man working for YOU. But you are probably only aware of what the 3 pages in your history book mentioned.
It is about time we are compensated for the years of restricted liberty that we have undergone.
Assalam Alaikum.
...yeah and then they become MIA's or POW's and when their number is going too high CNN will quietly stop counting the casualities (like it happened right now)...
1) Read 1984, and find out what happens to people with nothing to hide
2) Read about Stalin and what happened to people with nothing to hide
3) Read about Nixon and what he wanted to do to people with nothing to hide.
Nothing to hide is NOT the same as agreeing with the goverment.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I think if more news are like this, with pictures, people might start to half-assedly guess what a war is really like - death and misery.
Anyway - I have been kind of thinking (and hoping) that maybe the war will go off so badly until the US will put a "non-aggressive" clause in the constitution like Germany or Japan. I mean, what do you have to lose from it? just because you have the biggest gun doesn't mean you should wave it around and use it. - and you can still use your troops duing UN approved stuff - I think the only military excursions that US undertook since the UN has been UN approved actions.
(subject change, to something slightly on topic) My heart sinks when I see articles like this on CNN because I know they don't really care about stuff like this. Remember that CNN is in the same league as RIAA and MPAA - they are called content providers, who is willing to do everything they can so that they can be sure you are paying more than your fair share.
Maybe I am just being pessimistic, though - somebody please prove me wrong.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
If you like your privacy, maybe you shouldn't post such information to a public message board. Just kidding.
..... include such lovely items as supporting the 'rights' of grown men to molest under-age boys (ie. NAMBLA). Yeah... you'll have to forgive me if I fail to become overly enthusiastic when the ACLU jumps on board these days.
There is such a thing as going waaay to far. They're so far out in the left field that you need binoculars to see them.
Notice that the news feeds ONLY start noticing at the VERY last possible moment, or sadly long after the fact (DMCA, Michican's anti-NAT law, etc). Too little, too late.
It is good to see these concerns elevated to the general public but I always keep this little thought in mind when I read about technology (especially internet related) the mainstream media.
I get the impression that the mainstream media is scared of the internet. I wonder if part of it due to changes in how we get our information. In the old days, we turned the TV to 1 of 3 or 4 channels and that was about it. Today, we can use search engines and countless news sites instead. So, the mainstream media feels threatened by the internet as it reduces their influence as well as their revenues.
I got the impression by how some journalist report their discoveries in a local channels expose on the internet. I remember one article where this journalist was inquiring about cookies websites leave behind and the information others can potentially garner from them. Her reaction was of shock! Her response was that a hapless computer user was totally helpless (no mention of turning off cookies for example) unless the government steps in and starts regulating cookies. As a result of this news article, I got the impression that the journalist was more afraid of the internet than anything else.
The USA, we have a Constitutional Democracy, is better know as a Capitalist Republic.
The civil servants are regular folks. The Elected Officials are the Ruling Bosses, who have been known (at times) to try controlling the future by sometimes questionable actions. However, as long as they are the Ruling Bosses there will be no questions [HEIL ______ (fill in the blank)].
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
From the article:
If Steinhardt were to upgrade to a device with global-positioning capabilities, investigators might even track his whereabouts.
Mr. Steinhart is being tracked right now; he doesn't have to upgrade anything.
While your mobile phone is active it will connect with the nearest base station. As you move, it will change base stations. By tracking the base stations you use, you can get a quite nice plot of how you move around. This can be done using todays tech and you don't have to use the phone; just leave it on.
Today the resolution is somewhat lacking, but there are technologies that help. The mobile tech of tomorrow will use smaller cells, providing a finer tracking resolution.
)9TSS
Yes, I mean you. And not just you computer geeks. Your mom should be using encryption too.
Another page of interest is Is This the America I Love?
Thank you for your attention.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Ok. Imagine the situation:
Microsoft buys some (more) politicians and gets a law passed saying that emulated gaming is illegal. This means that people who write emulators are criminals, and those associated with them ought to be 'watched'.
You get an FBI phone tap.
Why? In your slashdot 'fans' list is one 'rtaylor', who has links to WineX on his website.
You see, you've done nothing wrong, and yet 'they're watching you'! This is sounds like a pretty extreme example, but this sort of thing is entirely possible once as soon as a less trustworthy government (or civil servant) gets any power. Stopping privacy violations now might save a whole lot of grief in the future. Of course, it might never happen. Personally I'd like to hedge my bets.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
The arguments seem to boil down to "trust" and "possible misuse".
Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.
But in a free society, shouldn't people have the right to be paranoid? The right to free speech includes anonymous speech, and the right NOT to speak out.
Life is not so "black and white" or "right and wrong" with respect to privacy. Say I'm a licensed, professional engineering. My company is committing illegal actions violating environmental standards, and endangering the welfare of the local population. If my free speech were truly protected, then blowing the whistle would be consequence free. But anyone knows that companies have something to hide, and that employees who violate that "corporate wall of silence" find it harder to get a job with another employer. Thus, anonymous speech could be used, if I wanted to protect my career. What if the company I worked for had influence politically -- and with our current law and mind frame....i could be considered a terrorist.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.
That argument alone isn't enough for me. Kennith Lay was a person "just like me" -- he went home every night to his home and family. But the big difference is Kennith Lay got rich off putting 42,000 american familes out of work. Misuse isn't a "hypothetical situation" its a standard operating procedure. Wouldn't you misuse it? What if the "security benifits" outweighed the "costs". Besides, no one's going to find out about it. And after they realized we prevented Sept. 11th 2: The Sequel, they wouldn't question our methods. The ends will justify the means for the public.
It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.
Or divert the watchful eye's attention on to someone else's. Remember, in 1984 all the party members could turn off their telescreens.
Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any government surveillance as anybody else.
If everyone were equal under the law, George W. Bush would have to take the bus and would never have come to power. His "youthful indiscretions" were D.U.Is at age 29. Police Officers found him driving on the shoulder of the road! Now he gets to send other families' kids off to die, having never fought in a war himself (He dodged the draft by joining the national guard back during Nam.)
If the NSA employee could discover something about you in the future and use it against you; well that's a bummer; but there is just as much chance of something being found and used against that NSA employee.
Again, more motivation to find dirt on other people. Get results, and they won't be looking for fault on the inside. There are plenty of patsy's in the american public.
I think I trust my Government. They're elected after all;
Not in my country, buddy. Stupid Florida.
the big caveat being that the majority of what is the "Government" is the civil service; which of course does not change with elections. I'm sure "Yes Prime Minister" has been seen outside the UK.
Even Civil Servants fall in love, and have cats and dogs as pets.
Plenty of people who've done horrible, horrible things were animal lovers or some such drek. Hitler was a strict vegetarian. G.W. Bush Jr reads scripture every day in the morning, even when he was executing retarded people as the Governor of Texas.
We've also had the secret police in western countries for years; and probably still have departments that are "even more secret than the secret ones that we know about"; but so what.
So why should I just sit there and let a soulless organization be funded with my money to work against me and deny me the very freedoms I'm supposedly paying them to "protect"? Are YOU being served?
I think people need to chill out a bit.
I think you need to graduate High School, go to college, maybe stop watching "Yes Prime Minister" and look at how dreadfully dangerous your government IS. Not "will be" or "can be", but IS.
As long as the ACLU refuses to recognize the 2nd Amendment I'll continue to not recognize the ALCU as actually looking out for our civil liberties.
Poindexter is lucky not to be in jail, let alone directing Total Information Awareness. I seem to recall cover-ups for Iran Contra. Do we want this criminal dictating our freedoms to us?
e s/ 18/archive/
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episod
If you are on the "right," ask yourself "Would you trust Hillary Clinton with these powers?"
If you are on the "left," ask yourself "Would you trust John Ashcroft with these powers?"
People forget that if the government got all the data they wanted, it would be way to massive to really analyze. The best they could do would be to, given a particular name, dig up information about that person. Most data about what people do would never ever ever be seen. Indeed even now there are backlogs in stuff like wire tap transcriptions. If every piece of data is being watched, humans can't possibly watch it all.
I'm not saying that this is a good thing. Certainly the governments ability to look intimate details up from my life scares me. I'm just saying that we need to worry less about people using general data to find criminals, and more about digging up info about us after some suspicion.
Still automated data miners, checking against a profile, will eventually be something to worry about. I'd watch for profiles for terrorists, then kiddie porn, then, once that is established, move on to other crimes.
Gryftir
Logic tells us about a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy, an either or that fails to take into account other options. "Your either with us, or against us."
http://www.santacruzbynight.com/index.shtml Santa Cruz By Night Vampire Larp
The ACLU almost always support liberal causes.
They don't support any form of property use rights (ask the Klamanth basin landowners about federal water use restrictions).
I don't remember the ACLU helping the US public continue having access to federal parks, national forests when the clinton administration put millions of miles of roads in those parks off limits...
Why is privacy a basic, fundamental right? Read the sections on privacy in this short but powerful essay [privcom.gc.ca]:
" A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
"By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.
"The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.
"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy...
"...The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society...
If you've got nothing to hide in this day and age, then.......man, get off the computer and get a life. This is not a troll, either. Are you REALLY that boring?
I wouldnt call helping the Klan a "liberal cause" or helping Jahova's witntnesses battle a town who had ruled that they needed a state licence to go door to door. read up, mo. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030501 a.htm
http://www.aclumontana.org/rights/cantwell.html
There's more, just look.
I have some karma to burn, so let me jump in... The parent (-1 Insightful) is as funny as is tragic.
This is the sign of the times, where dissent is crushed so easily, may be not with the power of force that we accuse Saddam of using, but it is getting close to that.
Yesterday I saw on TV where the TV station was calling for the firing of a Columbia Univ's anthroplogy professor for hoping for more mogadishu type attacks (in private conversation). It may be very tasteless, but for the TV station calling for firing him (they showed his photo on TV too) is very disturbing.
May be we hate the enemy so much that we are becoming him!
S
going stop running over those pesky protesters.
oh wait. nevermind.
I happen to be a "person like you or me" that work for the government. The problem is that I have an opinion as to what is right and what is wrong. So do my co-workers. I wouldn't trust them with my private information. Hell, I attended a lunch and people learned I was a vegetarian... this seemed to weird out many of them and I'm pretty sure some classify me as a "goddamned hippie!" If word got out that I was an atheist I honestly don't know if they could ignore that. People in the government will do what they feel is just. A LOT of people believe "just" is enforcing their beliefs upon others. So... how big is your penis... really... c'mon.. you can trust me... I'm from the government.
-Derick
So? The point is that there is reams of data on many citizens of the US right now, waiting for an excuse to be dug up and used against them. Should you become a high ranking member of a registered minority party (like, say, the Green Party), all the data pertaining to you might suddenly become very useful in limiting your activities and effectiveness. And what about the future, where transcribing tapes and typing in thousands of pages of handwritten notes may be as simple as feeding the tape/folder through a machine? When analyzing terabytes of information is as simple as running a join on two small tables in SQL? What are you gonna do then? Demand all your data be expunged?
First a fundamental rule:
It doesn't absolutely matter, just how it relates to you.
with 9/11 alot of people died, and media coverage was huge.It also drew attention for being unusual, so people feel the danger.
With car accidents, most people have few if any people close to them tha died in one.And it happens, it's normal no extra attention, it doesn't seem very probable.
Now both of these threats are fought.
People take on seatbelt laws, safer cars, action against drunk/unlicensed/speeding drivers.
Yes we could all out forbid cars or we could relax the rules.Some people would prefewr less strict speeding rules, other would prefer stricter speeding rules.
But all in all our fight against car accidents is stable.We are already doing most we can without sacrificing too much.
Now the other problem is arab terrorism.
we are trying to fight it, how effective war in Iraq will turn out remains to be seen.
There are extremes we could take.
We could bomb an arab city of 1,000,000 to the ground for every 1000 Americans killed.It would be effective, they'd be to afraid themselves, although like outlawing cars this is too extreme for most.
We could sit on our asses and accept the attacks, but we are not that passive.
In between would be taking control of the arab world, or try to make friends with them by bowing down.Between that lies taking control of some arab territories(iraq afghanistan), making friends with others(kuwait, turkey, saudi-arabia) and keeping an eye on others (syria, jordan).
What you find to be the best solution is personal.
But it seems the American people are averiging at the last one.
my little brother could send an email about the new System of a Down video. It could be short and sweet, something like this:
"Dood, you gotta see Boom. I just downloaded it. It fuckin kills. It's the bomb."
that would trigger a flag in a system somewhere, he would suddenly become suspect. they could then check his library records, find out that the had checked out "the anarchist's cookbook" (in order to get drug-making recipes). He is now a possible terrorist. The power they have to 'dissappear' him w/o reason, warning, or rights is worse than every in our lifetimes.
And how do your prove that you are not a terrorist if you you insist on telling the truth that you don't like our current elected leaders and their power-grabbing?
The truth doesn't care what I think.
I'd love to see a case of that.
As a Liberty loving Christian, I would love to have a organisation standing up for my liberties, but sadly I have only seen the ACLU move against Chritianity.
It's like they are Anti Christian.There is even a Christian organisation, the ACLJ, made just to protect Judeo-Christian rights against the ACLU.
The ACLU is all against school prayer and for the removing of "under God" in the constitution.
And that is not Liberty.
Religous freedom, and the seperation of Church and State are meant to let everyone practise their own religion,not that atheism should be default.
A sample case:
A christian couple ran a pop and mom copycenter.
Now a witch came in and copied some witch stuff.
They had already accepted payment when they saw what it was, so they finished the transaction and then kindly asked the woman to not come in their store in the future.
There were two other copycenters in the same street, bothe less than 1 KM both ways.
Yet the ACLU sued.
Now this witch wasn't dependent on this particular center, they had no monopoly or so.
As I see it, if I am truly free I shouldn't be obligated to provide a service to someone if that truly offends me and the has a serious alternative.
What this couple did was no less discriminatory then a lawyer refusing a particular case out of principal, or a doctor refusing to abort a baby or euthanise an elder.Or for that matter me refusing to right DRM software.
It is not freedom to force someone to make an agreement to provide a product/service for a purpose he is opposed to, especially if there are readily alternatives.
My perception as a Christian is that the ACLU is actively fighting against my freedoms.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me
Have you meet many government employees? My wife's family is filled with them. They're mostly part of a good ol' boys network (primarily it's the law enforcement organizations like this) and you do NOT get in the door unless you know someone or think/act just like the rest of them. People who have ever done anything with their life that shows the least bit of individuality or fun do NOT get these jobs. People that have made minor mistakes with their life (i.e. been HUMAN) do NOT get these jobs. Have bad credit? Sorry, you can't be trusted. Smoked pot more than 1 or 2 times? We don't want you. Have a couple friends who have DUIs? You might get one too, we don't need you. It's really like that in these law enforcement organizations. They want thoughtless drones who obey.
It's not much better in regulatory agencies like the EPA. The guy carting the mail around every day might be on the up and up, but a great deal of the higher officials are paid-off puppets for polluting companies or people that want to cause the competition some headaches.
You're right, people DO need to chill out a bit...it's not like we're being persecuted and hunted down in the streets, but if you think these "people like you and me" give a shit about you or YOUR family, civil liberties, freedom, or happiness, you're kidding yourself.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
... since he wasn't ever on CNN. I think he was on that bastion of liberalism - the Fox network.
Sean
Lets say you are gay and enjoy sex with men.
Nothing wrong with that.
Lets say you then write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper critical of some aspect of the government.
And then mysteriously pictures of your "liasons" show up in your bosses's inbox at work.
That would NEVER happenm, right?
Lets say in 10 years, a Muslim fundamental revolution takes over the US government and says effectively "Gay sex is an abomination before Allah, you will be stoned". What then?
Life is funny and then it bites you in the ass. And that will probably be illegal under some new wacky law.
Sean... you are half right... he wasn't on FOX. However he was dropped from MSNBC, not CNN as I had previously said. Thanks for catching my error.
Its all just smoke and mirrors.
Possible misuse isn't limited to the government. If at any time anyone has a reason to discredit you or something like that (even, especially, if they're the one who did something wrong) everything you've ever done can be taken out of context, twisted, etc. Just ask former Supreme Court nominee Bork about that... I know someone who got calls of the nature "do you know anything bad about him you will divulge to us" which were apparently done en masse...
"But in a free society, shouldn't people have the right to be paranoid?"
When did rights come into the picture? Who said you didn't have the right to be paranoid? He just said people are being a little too paranoid. He didn't say people didn't have the right to be. You've been reading too much Slashdot, where everything is a "right" being taken away.
Your question assumes that the burden of proof is on the individual so that they may make a convincing enough arguement to be free from surveillance.
However, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who seek to limit the freedom and rights of others. So, in this example, the government is seeking to obtain information about individuals that those individuals may not wish to be public. It is up to the government to demonstrate why this is necessary. It can't be just a little convincinig either, it needs to be without a doubt, 100% convincing that this information is necessary. It is a trivial excercise to determine why. For example, imagine a society where anyone could find out anything about you, and could watch you any time they wanted to, even during your most intimate moments. I think that it's obvious that most people do not want this, even by their government.
Maybe surveillance doesn't bother you. What should bother you is the intrustion on large amounts of people who do not want this. In a democratic society people should have a choice over whether or not they are spied on. I'm sure if it were put up for vote, it would be voted down in an instant. What should worry you is what this says about our democracy. It's not just the invasion of privacy that should bother you, it's the overt violation of rights and the trampling of the wishes of the people. What do you think the government is going to do with this information? Do you think they are going to do what the people want?
The other thing to note is that this surveillance is one sided. I would say that if anything, there is much stronger evidience that the people need to be able to spy on their government but do we see this happening? Why not? Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.