I am interesting in where you all draw that line between security and privacy.

The Constitution guarantees that we, citizens, should be secure in our persons and free from unreasonable searches. However, we live in an age impossible for the Founders to imagine--emails, text messages, cell phones--even with encryption,--- and enemies that want to harm us. Or, is it really all that different from plots that could have be hatched in the smoke-filled backroom of a local bar during the days of the revolution?
I am not interested in political talking points, or placing blame on Obama or Bush, dems or repubs, Whigs, or Torries.

What I want is to know where you draw that imaginary line. The ends of the continuum, as I envision it are equally unattainable--perfect security or perfect privacy. One requires absolute control of all citizens and all their actions, the other extreme allows younger, stronger men to dominate everyone else by mere physical pwer. Neither is acceptable to me. I also tend NOT to trust government bureaucrats of ANY political party--they all have shown the inclination to misuse private information that was supposedly "safe". But even bureaucrats are human and sometimes give in to urge to use information when they shouldn't.
I suppose, I accept some invasion of my privacy for the greater good that comes with a measure of security and civility. I also accept that there is no presumption of privacy for anything posted to any electronic/ internet device or location. Don't want anyone to find out?--keep your secret to yourself.

What about you? Where do you draw the line, and why?
Please respect my wish to keep this nonpartisan---what is your opinion?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I will always error on the side of privacy. I also don't see any distinction between electronic media and physical media, reading my e-mail is exactly the same as reading my physical mail. I am in favor of setting a very high bar for any government to have access to my information (i.e., they need to talk to a judge for each individual case). I am also not a fan of the government intercepting international communications that originate in the US in the interest of "security," but I understand that there is very little that we can do to stop them.

The bottom line is that the potential for governments abusing their power worries me more than any other potential threat; and once you give authority to any government, you will never be able to take it back.

Dunno. In principal I sort of side witih Craig except that I dont see a meaningful distinction between international and domsetic communications. It was after all largely that distinction that contributed to the uselessness of US "intelligence" pre 9/11.

In principal there might be no distinction between paper or spoken communication or electronic. But in reality there is no such thing as electronic privacy and anyone who thinks there is is naieve. That's just the nature of the world we live in. Maybe a law can be passed that specifically addresses internet communications the same way as postal or telephone etc, but the reality is once it's "out there" in cyberland it's public, plain and simple.

Also, unfortunately, I think when the successful jihadi's get a nuke ot NY or DC the entire debate will become surperfluous.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

The important things to me are the rights of habeus corpus, the determination of probable cause and the issue of warrants by an impartial judge. These are legal doctrines that one does not find in totalitarian systems, and the principles that make us a nation of laws instead of men. They require an impartial judge to review the actions of the police, before the police/government are allowed to act (probable cause), so an imparital judge can decide whether or not the police action is not simply a fishing expedition or harassment of a citizen and is based on a true fact of involvement in a criminal violation. They require the police/government to appear before a magistrate with the person arrested so that the reason why the person is held is heard by the judge, so that bail can be set and so that objections can be raised by the defendant's attorney and acted on by the judge if necessary (habeus corpus). They require that any action taken or any person held by the police be done so only when a warrant signed by a judge exists, so that the police are controlled by the courts, and not the other way around (warrants). As long as these principles are enforced, the media itself, whether it be electronic or otherwise, does not matter.

Any violation of those principles is a direct attack on our rights as citizens and should be resisted as strongly as we resist terrorism.

That is kinda tricky. What is your definition of "unreasonable"? There are those who will never say any search is reasonable even if a nuclear warhead were sticking out of the ground. OTOH, there are also the other parties that will say any search is reasonable even if the tip was from a 2 yo kid.

Which brings us to the next question. If the founding fathers set a bunch of rules, are they based on the fact that things can change or is it based on what the issue was at the time? Should we simply say that the founding fathers word is immutable law or should we check it from time to time to see if it is relevant?

If you are talking about Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc, I don't see where there should be presumption of privacy. After all, when you post on a blog or a forum like this, it is open to the public just as if you were to publish a letter on the newspaper.

IMO, there has to be probable cause for something that you want to search. IOW, you don't get to throw a bunch of stuff at me and see what sticks. In certain extreme cases, you should be allowed to go ahead and do what you need to maintain security. HOWEVER, at the end of the day, you MUST justify your actions to a neutral party. IOW, you can simply come searching for "something" and when you can't find it, say "Oops. Wrong number" or go on a fishing expedition for say explosives and slap me with a fine for overdue library books. There should be some sort of authority to punish those who abuse that authority instead of a simple apology.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

The greatest food for the greatest number within reason and with oversight.

I have no kick when I have to take my shoes off and get a pat down every time I take a flight..and have everyone checking me out. Same thing with monitoring my telephone calls. Nothing there. So what? Nothing I do will be of interest to the FBI, CIA or NSA.

Anything posted on internet can make its way back to you. I understand nowadays some young adults are actually changing their names to "bury" their electronic biographies so employers won't find out about their past web activities.
But does the FBI or CIA really GAS if you spend all day surfing porn or al Jaezzera ?? I doubt it.

I do have a problem with all those things, primarily because they are wasting my time for very little benefit. Airport security appears to be more theater than substance, I have no doubt that dedicated terrorists would succeed whether I take my shoes off or not. I understand that it make some people feel better, I'm not one of them.

"Monitoring" my communications (written, electronic, or otherwise) is completely unacceptable without due process. It doesn't matter, if I have "nothing to hide," I'm not living in china.

I agree that anything "posted" on the web is essentially public information, don't post anything you wouldn't want your mother (or your boss) to see.

I understand your demand for an impartial judge to issue the proper warrants, and agree with the principle.
Without trying to sound too cynical, where do you find an impartial judge? The judiciary is as infected with people who want to further an agenda as is the media. Judges appointed by repubs might look differently than judges appointed by dems, especially when they consider who is asking, and who is "in power".

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

That is one POV. Many people simply think, " If I have nothing to hide, why fear the government search?" The answer for me, is that with the great number of laws on the books, if someone in government wanted to "get" you, they could go fishing to find something, anything you did that was illegal.
That is why I like the demand for warrants before searches can be made.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Good points so far, thanks.

Another question...
Would another terrorist attack change your opinion on the freedom/ security thing?

Not for me, as I do not believe there is any presumption that nothing bad should ever happen. We should try to stop any such attack, but principles are not to be judged solely by how they might affect "me".

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I agree completely.

It makes me crazy when people say that things changed after 9/11; nothing really changed except public perception. The risk of the next attack did not increase after 9/11, we are simply more aware of the risk. I'm certain that there will be another attack at some point, but I'm not willing to give up significant freedoms to prevent it (or, more likely, not prevent it).

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=7986

Privacy trumps security every time for me. Having said that, I'm amazed at how stupid people can be in making their lives an open book online. Privacy, even anonymity isn't rocket science.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

The schools over here now teach the students to apply what they call "the assembly test". You do not put anything on the internet that you would feel uncomfortable standing in front of a school assembly & telling or showing every one. There is no security or privacy on the net.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

MS Fowler in your first post you give me the impression that security and privacy are opposites but in post #10 you talk about security vs freedom - I guess you are talking about security and freedom throughout?

I don't think that anything is 100% secure and I don't think you can be 100% free. The definitions of what is considered to be secure and what is considered to be free seem to vary with specific situations and time - and then get associated with what is reasonable.

Although modern law attempts to define what is reasonable I think the best definition I have come across are the long winded complicated essays written by Josef Pieper in his definition of prudence => where prudence refers to the following definition from the freedictionary.com

"Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense"

If you have many long winter nights ahead and you desire some complicated reading I recommend Josef Pieper!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Pieper

__________________
1992 W201 190E 1.8 171,000 km - Daily driver
1981 W123 300D ~ 100,000 miles / 160,000 km - project car stripped to the bone
1965 Land Rover Series 2a Station Wagon CIS recovery therapy!
1961 Volvo PV544 Bare metal rat rod-ish thing

I'm here to chat about cars and to help others - I'm not here "to always be right" like an internet warrior



Don't leave that there - I'll take it to bits!