Government Seeks to Redefine Privacy

[lotuseclat79]

Ap Article here (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TERRORIST_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT).

-{ Quote: "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." }--- Tom

[mercurie]

I believe Mark Klein, however what on earth would they do with all those communications. They would have to filter them through a word search in order to throw out the mass of junk they don't want, to find the key words spoken or typed that needs further investigation. It is impossible to stop this if you wanted to. Also look for the companies to get the protection they seek eventually anyways.

[SteveBlanchard]

For one moment I thought the article referred to the UK.

[Jim Verard]

-{ Quote: "Privacy no longer can mean anonymity. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information." }-Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. ::)

[Carver]

Do we really want to leave it up to government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information. These are the same people who LOST two Hard Drives full of top secret Nuclear Information and wasn't the Government just recently reprimanded for inter agency information leakage.

[LoneWolf]

-{ Quote: " These are the same people who LOST two Hard Drives full of top secret Nuclear Information and wasn't the Government just recently reprimanded for inter agency information leakage." }-


Awww Yea.....Now I feel better ::)

[Mrkvonic]

-{ Quote: "Do we really want to leave it up to government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information. These are the same people who LOST two Hard Drives full of top secret Nuclear Information and wasn't the Government just recently reprimanded for inter agency information leakage." }-

Hello,
Don't forget the 11 heads lost in marshes and sea all over the world...
Mrk

[lotuseclat79]

From Ars Technica here (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071111-us-intelligence-official-you-get-privacy-when-your-definition-matches-ours.html):

-{ Quote: "
Kerr's comments come at a time when the US government is trying to address objections over the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. In particular, the question is whether or not telecommunications companies deserve immunity for their involvement in illegal wiretapping beginning in 2001. Kerr seems to be saying, hey guys, what they did isn't bad at all, you should be impressed how secret it all was, really.

Proponents of increased surveillance, like Kerr, have high estimations of the government's ability to safeguard sensitive data, though the sentiment is not shared by all. It's hard to have too much confidence when the FBI is busy losing laptops and the nature of such programs appears to be one involving little oversight from independent branches of government.

It's cliché, but Benjamin Franklin long ago warned against rhetoric that demands trading individual rights for corporate security. Asking Americans to greenlight extensive, unchecked electronic surveillance by changing their very definition of privacy is a prime example of such rhetoric.

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government'" argument.
" }-

-- Tom