It's time to re-think our Privacy?

Marsha;

I did not see this article. Can you tell me where you read it? I'd like to digest it in its entirety.

I've never been wild about the media's locust attacks. There seems to be a lot of swoop in, throw out a bunch of sound bites, right or wrong, then depart. When some of the information is found to be untrue, we may or may not hear about it. If we do, it will be buried right there in the corrections section on page 47.

I guess that's all they have to do to feel like they have met their duty to the public. There just doesn't seem to be anyone willing to hold them responsible for the damage they cause to people's lives and reputations.

Finder

It's Time to Rethink Privacy, Official Says - AOL News

Marsha;

Thanks for the link. Wow! This is a tough one. Not sure who to take umbrage with.

The government says they have to turn over the data, but they can get sued if they do. If they are given immunity from law suits then who is to police them with who else gets this data. It's pretty hard to sue the government for lost or stolen data.

We learned that with the stolen laptop that some VA employee wasn't supposed to take out of the compound with all that veterans and active duty information loaded on it.

I'm glad this one is not a timed test. It is going to take some more of my slow thought process to sort out what I think should be done. I can say that I'm certainly not wild about the power the government is wielding in their endeavor to 'protect ' us.

Finder

anyone who will sacrifice a little liberty for the sake of security, will deserve neither and lose both.  On the other hand, If your making a call to Iran, be prepared for big brother to be listening.... :)

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

smunsey - Love that quote although it doesn't seem to make much impact lately.  All the administration has to do is throw out the "homeland security" moniker and we're supposed to blindly accept their word that it is a good and necessary thing. I'm not a big supporter of the government being able to do very much well.  Usually because they're more interested in politics than people.  And as for this issue, I can't see that they need to get this info from the communications companies without being able to prove why they need it in court, either open court or in the FISA court.

It's not only time to rethink privacy, but what it means to us to be an American. You know what they called the land of the free and the home of the brave. I cannot believe that Americans just sit here and are not in an outrage over some of this stuff.

I guess we are just a little too busy watching Dancing with the Stars.

The Bush Brothers are the biggest offenders of the Constitution and human rights that I can remember in recent history. Okay, I know and understand President Bush is suffering from that 8 year learning curve theory. But the next time I hear him say his first duty is to protect us I think I will be forced to blog the White House. No Mr. President that Oath you took was to protect and defend our Constitution you know those rights we have to be free Americans.

I think I would take a little fear any day over the decisions of a few to remove all our rights as Americans. After all I am aware of the other right I have too, the right to bear arms.

You know, with the elections coming up I have to think to myself what the hell are we Argentina. We have Daddy Bush, then Clinton, then son Bush, and we are going toward wife Clinton, and will that set us up for Baby brother Jeb Bush, you never know by then Chelsea Clinton may be inspired to run. Just when I thought Clay County was inbred,

I would hope some of the people could drag themselves away from the reality shows on tv and go vote for the good of the Country before we no longer have one.

"those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security"

No doubt change is in order from Washington to Green cove. So we march of to the polls and then what? We get to choose between 2 evils. Where are the candidates who think like us?? Out of politics.. Wonder why?????

Marsha, thanks for the interesting question and link to the article.  Every time I've thought about it, I keep arriving at the same bottom line ...

Give up privacy and we have allowed our nation to be fundamentally changed by the actions of militant Islamic extremists.

Don't give up privacy.  Defend it!

Michael S. Mann

I think it may be a little late. I am not worried as much about calls to Iran being monitored as I am having every move I make being called public record and displayed on the inter-net. Like a recent Blogger said you can go on web and learn anything you want about your neighbor. We demanded it.  Where do we draw the line? The way it looks to me is I already have a lot more info'. than I need.

I will disagree that you can learn anything about your neighbor you want too. The things you can learn are important to us as a society. You should have the right to know if your neighbor is a criminal, a child molester, or never had a criminal history at all. You should know about courts and court date because by law and the constitution it is public.

Public records does not allow you or anyone else into peoples homes or into their private communications. That is a big difference when you are in public what you do is public. When you are in your home that is private. Regardless if you are on the phone or on the computer.

I'm not sure that anyone has a constitutional right to information on courts although the press has made a big issue of the public's "right to know" in our history.  What was guaranteed was the right to a press free from government influence although I would say that might not be true in all cases anymore.  The public's "right to know" and public records access is a Congressional and court driven idea throughout our history, not something that is specifically guaranteed in the Consititution. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  Maybe there is a section that talks about it but I couldn't find it.)

And concerning the criminal history, I do have a question that I saw posed in an article I read while traveling last month.  If the purpose of our judicial system is punishment and rehabilitation, how is that served with the public posting of criminal histories?  Won't that information be used to discriminate in all sorts of ways against individuals that have served their sentences?  How does that help them reintegrate into our society as honest and productive people?  Isn't that just a form of nonjuducial punishment?  It's a thorny issue and I'm not sure I have a recommended solution but it definitely is (and has been fought out in the courts for years) something to think about.

Generally, due process guarantees the following:( this list is not exhaustive)

• Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
• Right to be present at the trial
• Right to an impartial jury
• Right to be heard in one's own defense
• Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior

Public trial mean an open trial so that should mean the records are open for all the people to see that is was a fair and public trial.

Could you even think of the abuse of a few if that was shut down, locked out from the public's right to see.

14th amendment

Guantomino Bay ring any bells for the public. Way to go Bush keep uphold those rights.

Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4th amendment

I could blog some of these subjects all day but I'll stop now.

LARon, your take on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is correct.  As an addition, nowhere in the Constitution is there mention to a citizen's right to privacy, as such.  However, it can and has been successfully argued that there is a presumptive right to privacy by virtue of the specific citations of when that right may be exempted, such as the result of search warrants.

Common law also supports a citizen's right to privacy in many instances.

Perhaps just as important is that there are certain assumptions developed over time in which any citizen may justifiably expect some non-specified rights as part of being an American.  The right to privacy for private citizens in private settings is among them.  Those non-specific rights deserve the same zealous defense as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Michael S. Mann

I have to agree that it seems like our "right" to privacy is being trampled upon at every level in the guise of "Homeland Security". Alot of it is reminicent of the abuses that happened during the 60's. I continue to be amazed at how many people think that the government has the right to do whatever they want as long as they cloak it in "national security".

As for the "public" trial issue, I think that it's a huge leap to say that the right to a public trial means that everything that is involved in that trial should be made available to the general public. And the courts do agree with that to some degree when they "seal" some trial records or some lawsuit agreements are hidden behind confidentiality agreements that the court is required to enforce.

I never said everything that was involved in the trial is or should be open for public records.

The 6th amendment establishes the right of the accused to a public trial. However, trials may be reasonably regulated to avoid publicity that could prejudice a jury or harm the well-being of participants.

Openness may be overridden by the motion of closure.  Closures are decided case-by-case by the judge basing on substantial or legitimate public interest. As a matter of fact the jury cannot hear everything either. Certain things are not released such as records concerning juveniles and a lot of other matters. Certain release of information can be sealed as well by a Judge. Individuals can have their records expunged or sealed as well. A grand jury is done behind close doors.

The records that are available on line or at the court house are limited for the public and those were the one I was talking about concerning public records, public trials, and the peoples right to know.

This was in response to ex's statement, "I am having every move I make being called public record and displayed on the inter-net. Like a recent Blogger said you can go on web and learn anything you want about your neighbor. We demanded it.  Where do we draw the line? The way it looks to me is I already have a lot more info'. than I need."

I value the public records rights that people have and access to those records. Public trials, public records, and the public's right to know. However public records is a Florida Constitutional Right for access.

I agree with the right to a public trial but the way it's currently practiced, an individual doesn't have the right to a "closed" trial without being able to show some pretty serious cause to the court.  Sort of, "guilty until proven innocent".  It's not really the accused's right to close the trial to the public even thought it supposedly is his right to have an open and public trial.

And while it is fair to the say that the amount of information available to the public is "limited", if you look at most court cases that are posted you can see everything that was submitted in the trial from witnesses statements to lawyers motions.  It usually is a pretty complete record and is hardly "limited".

While I also value the public records rights, I don't necessarily agree that posting them freely on the internet should be required or necessary.   If someone wants that information, let them file a request for it, show cause why they want it and have that part of the "public" record as well.

Having these records on line saves lots of money to the taxpayers because they can access them without the help of government employees.

I would love to see all the back up material they have at the BCC meetings put on line for the public to see as well. Having to spend time during your day to go and research all these records, putting in request, waiting for them to complete those request and then you have to pay for them too.

Since they cannot ask for names or require the request be put in writing or even be required to know why you want the records, it may be hard to keep up with everytime it is requested to be reviewed.

Employees can then be used in redacting information such as social security numbers and other things that are not public records instead of looking for records.

Ok, I'm done....hahaha.  I was more interested in taking the "other side" for discussion's sake than really in disagreement with the basic premise.  I don't really disagree with records on the internet but the amount of all if it seems to be completely unregulated regardless of all the laws, rules and regulations governing it's dissemination.  I'm notreally  a "more is better" kind of person.

good discussion, and when the government starts taking over my private conversations and emails. I'm not the "more is better" kind of person either. But if I ever had a speeding ticket well that okay because I haven't.

Let's throw another fine idea gone bad into the fray. The Freedom of Information Act can get someone more information than I ever wanted to be available to strangers.

Here is a great example. I happened to sign up as a block captain for our neighborhood watch program. Not two weeks later, I received an email from the CCSO telling me that someone had submitted a FOIA request for the names etc. of all neighborhood watch participants in our development.

The CCSO kindly informed me that they had heeded counsel and released this information to the individual requesting it. Of course they couldn't tell me who requested this information or why they wanted it. If I want to know the who, I have submit a FOIA request, then wait for counsel to determine whether or not that information can be released to me.

Gotta love the government and their wisdom.

Finder

Finder as slow as some of these agencies are this could have been a request from a long time ago.

OneMann, your privacy was under attack long before 9/11.  The article mentions a former IBM employee hooking up government computers in 2003.  Does anyone really think government supercomputers weren't hooked up in the 80's?  That doesn't count spy satellites which can focus on our homes, etc.  For an eye opener, read the 1995 book Deep Black by William Burroughs, or Spy Catcher by Peter Wright.  Black deals with spy satellites, Catcher with English spies, but mentions a lot about technology, and is amazing how long some of this has been around.

LARon, wasn't right to know a rallying cry for the media?  It's funny how perspective changes for most people when the word right is applied.  60 minutes pointed that out years ago when speaking about the abortion issue.  It was generally opposed until someone added the term right, then it became a real cause.

In the meantime "right" gets applied to other issues, we seem to lose our "original" rights.  Priavcy seems to be going down the sewer in multiple ways.  In addition to the above, have any of you has the "opportunity" to deal with our county code enforcement?  It seems a man's home is not his castle anymore.  The government can tell us what we can and can't have in our yard, to cut our grass, whether or not we can have a car that does not run, you get the idea.  Where does it end????

Funny you should mention the FIOA, in my 20+ years in military administration, I routinely received FOIA requests concerning various commands to which I was attached (usually at least 10 or so a year) from various media or private citizens.  I cannot remember EVER approving such a request or having a denial overturned by the DoD General Counsul or Justice Dept when someone appealed our decision.  It's always very easy to use the "national security" or "needs of the sevice" label to avoid providing the information.  Also, as Angela pointed out, adding the costs required to provide the information also stops alot of requests.  But that's why the federal government DOESN'T provide information via the internet - only local/state governments routinely provide info via the internet.

The Federal Courts have records on line. They have PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and some others it just depends on what information you are attempting to access.

I agree mainly with the position of ex and semi - 'we' asked for the right to know everything, and then complain when we get it.  It is truly a matter of perspective.  No, I don't want Big Brother in my business, nor do I want Little Sister in my business.  I don't want my phone calls, or blog comments, monitored by Uncle Sam, nor do I want my dirty laundry in the street for all to see.  Too bad - they go together.

My opinion about why so called regular people opt out of public office is because they know they will have a FOIA microscope stuck up their you-know-what and they will have all of their skeletons drug out for all to laugh and point at.  And of course, when we see they have skeletons, they're automatically disqualifed - for being normal.  For a meager salary that is always criticized for being too high by the natives.  It's amazing anyone wants to run for office.

I want to be safe.  The criminals/terrorists know how to exploit the system.  I'm OK with the Man jacking some phone calls, or treading on some rights if it means I can go to Wal-Mart without being shot, or fly on a plane without being bombed out of the sky.  Privacy or security?  Privacy or security?  Privacy or security?

I'm going with security.  Of course it's not as simple as that.  Black or white.  We're American - we want it all.  Privacy AND security.  Step on his rights, not mine.

Oh yeah - I forgot the obligatory, "And it's all George Bush's fault."  How much longer before Hillary saves the world?

I absolutely agree with you, Bax, it is a miracle that we ever get anyone to run for elected office or even serve in an appointed one.  With the dearth of information that's available to public access, even a relatively "normal" person can't stand up to very much scrutiny.  And why would you want to put your family and friends through all that anyway.

It's never "all" anyone's individual fault but the current administration has been out front with "stepping" all over our expected privacy rights in the name of "homeland security".  You're right we want it all and there really isn't any reason we can't expect it do be done legally and respectful of individual right.  The FISA Court and Congressional Overview Committees were enacted for just that reason.  The current administration's view that "everything" falls within some sort of exigent circumstances is a nice way to get around the law.

As for Hillary (or any of the other announced candidates in either party), my view is that one "professional" politician is as bad as another for the most part.  And, personally, I think that she's too polarizing a person to get elected, I don't think she'll be saving anyone.