Kaplan's article formalized and sort of codifies the sort of surveillance I've suspected and inferred was going on for the last couple of years. Nicely done.

But he also proposes a view of civil liberties I find really disturbing -- the idea that a massive net of traffic analysis can be thrown over all our communications in order to single out targets for enhanced governmental scrutiny. And in breezily suggesting that the vast majority of us would approve of this, he makes it sound like a settled point of consensus.

I am no lawyer and am perhaps ill-positioned to take the pulse of the median American, but this strikes me as constitutionally suspect and sort of viscerally anti-American.

This is generalized suspicion on a grand scale -- a huge net thrown out to sift the population in hopes of turning up a few suspect individuals.

The 4th amendment requires probable cause "supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That standard is not met merely because of the assertion by some federal official (who's likely to be outed any minute by the Washington Post as yet another un-qualified RNC shill who got the job by fundraising for Bush-Cheney '04) that somewhere out there there's a bunch of evil doers plotting to hurt us -- and we've got to put the 21st century equivalent of a PIN-register on every phone and internet connection in America to stop them.

God, would even the Roberts court buy that assertion? I pray not. I fear they would. But I know Kaplan should not suggest the question is virtually without controversy.

That standard is not met meerly becasue of the assertion by some federal official (who's likely to be outed any minute by the Washington Post as yet another un-qualified RNC shill who got the job by fundraising for Bush-Cheney '04) that somewhere out there there's a bunch of evil doers plotting to hurt us -- and we've got to put the 21st century equivelent of a PIN-register on every phone and internet connection in america to stop them.

God, would even the Roberts court buy that assertion? I pray not. I fear they would. But I know Kaplan should not suggest the question is virtually without controversy.

The Roberts court would likely buy that assertion. The only hope for reversing course in this and other areas is ridding the government of the "neocons" or whatever the hell they are and putting some Americans in office.

This is how the neocons differ from real conservatives. The neos are not bothered at all by the idea that government will have the power to reach into every aspect of everyone's life. Of course, they feel that way because they assume they'll be the reachers and not the reachees. They'll soon discover that prediction is about as accurate as what they foretold for Iraq.

I've got news for you. The government isn't doing anything that private industry hasn't been doing for decades.

I know from working in the telecom industry.

In the case of private industry, data mining is used to help their bottom lines by weeding out deadbeats. Our government wants to use data mining to weed out terrorists who want to kill us all. If it's ok for you phone company to analyse your call records and internet traffic to see if you will pay your bill, why the big outcry when the government wants to analyse your call records to determine if you or your neighbor will blow up a building? Why the double standard? Why is it so wrong for government to have the same tools that private industry has had for decades? Where’s the outcry against corporate America’s invasion of our privacy?

It appears to me that you don't see the difference between gov and private groups.

The bill of rights apply to the government .

Frankly I believe that the private sector doing things like this is just as bad. We need rules like in the EU to "Protect" citizens and not leave them to the mercy of corporate interests - who DO NOT care anything about a consumer - so long as he or she continues to consume.

Don't forget that there are always certain parts of any society who would GLADLY give up the burden of being free to allow an overseer to think for them. We move closer and closer to George Orwells nightmare each day. People assume that what happened in his novel was a drastic and immediate change, but my friends - we are watching it happen right now: In Real Time.

Ideally, govt and private business are both bound by law. they do have different responsibilities and must act accordingly. Corporations have responsibilities to their shareholders. If they gather information to ensure proper payment for services provided, they are acting responsibly. If they share or sell such infromation without notifying the customer I believe they are breaking the law and should be punished. Government officials who break the law should also be punished if they break the law

I think Kaplan's main point is that this subject has to be widely discussed now so we can define the law and put safeguards in place before it gets out of hand.

If we're going to look at 4th amendment maybe we could look at the 2nd as well.

We had already long-since given up on fighting for our liberty prior to the appointment of President Bush. We Some of us just never thought that it would go this far.

This is what we defenders of civil liberties meant when we warned about slippery slopes.

Very true.

edthomas65

You are right that law breakers should be punished. But what happens when the people make the laws become beholden to the corporations?

cod3fr3ak:

But what happens when the people make the laws become beholden to the corporations?

Answer: You get the past 6 years.