[DanDaMan]

I don't give a shit which side of the political spectrum you find yourself on, you are being spied on every moment of every day by the federal, state and local governments. Are you safer? Is that notion of safety worth it? Who is going to protect you from Google, the FBI and the local police?

So naturally you're totally against any type of government run health care where the government knows everything about the state of your body?

[Dismal Scientist]

The interesting question is why this is happening and appears to be so universal. Hence, I'd like to bang on about Max Weber one more time.

Weber believed that the defining and decisive characteristic of European modernity was rationalization, and that it was simply in the nature of this rationalizing impulse that it would seek to exercise ever closer control over the individual members of society. He claimed that it had its origins in rational economic calculation, and that it was an inherent and inseparable part of our civilization - independent and regardless of the prevailing political ideology in any particular place or time.

Interestingly, he believed that this rational character applied only to the calculation of means, and not the definition of ends - and he did not make a distinction between the political or economic spheres. He would have considered both a credit card company monitoring your purchasing behavior and a government agency monitoring your telephone conversations or travel arrangements as equally characteristic of this phenomenon.

This is what I interpreted the original poster as referring to. He wasn't claiming that it was part of some sinister totalitarian conspiracy, but that we were being subjected to ever more surveillance and control simply because it was possible, and there are always practical and ostensibly benign reasons that can be found for doing so.

[DanDaMan]

This is what I interpreted the original poster as referring to. He wasn't claiming that it was part of some sinister totalitarian conspiracy, but that we were being subjected to ever more surveillance and control simply because it was possible, and there are always practical and ostensibly benign reasons that can be found for doing so.

Then what do you call a poster that makes such a post and is openly for government run health care that knows everything about your health and decides the care (time and money) you get?

[Huntster]

I believe it is a very good example of what happens when one's personal liberties are sacrificed in the name of security. I give you the privacy act. A monumental diminution of personal freedom broght to you by those very conservatives who are now trying to claim the title of Champions of Freedom. In this case it is the big bad liberals who are shouting for more personal freedom by opposing this kind of governmental spying into the personal lives of Americans.

My personal answer to the nightmare of airline travel and the Canadian bullshit at the border is to stay in Alaska. Fuck 'em. I'll keep my money here and hunt, fish, camp, snowmobile, etc to my heart's content. I never liked sweating in the nasty tropics, anyway, and if I really feel the need to do so, I'll suck it up and get on a plane to Kona.

But I am rather curious:

If you think the Privacy Act is the source of your difficulty, what do you propose for dealing with the very obvious and real danger of motherfuckers trying to crash airplanes into buildings, blow them up in mid-air, etc?

I don't give a shit which side of the political spectrum you find yourself on, you are being spied on every moment of every day by the federal, state and local governments.

As a former fed, why should I give a shit? They know everything about me, anyway.

Are you safer?

Yup.

Is that notion of safety worth it?

It is to me. Like I wrote, I have no need to personally haul my money to a foreign nation (or even a foreign state) to hand out to people who think they deserve a tip for smiling at me.

Who is going to protect you from Google, the FBI and the local police?

I don't need protection from Google, the FBI, or the local police.

And then there is the question of what I might call liberation. Most of you will never know the feeling of truely being lost. Of being a complete observer. Just a face in a crowd. You will just have to take my word for it that the feeling is liberating.

You want a true feeling of liberation?

Leave the world behind. Go someplace where you won't see another human...........at all. For days. Weeks. Even months.

(Pretty hard to get away from the aircraft, though...............but I've been places where I didn't even hear an airplane for days).

[DanDaMan]

Your Constitution is not the word of God. It was the words of men writing for the time in which it was written. Its authors could not have conceived of the complexities of 21st Century life, so why would you cling so slavishly to their words?

Because you cannot name another document, by men, that imparted more freedoms and liberties to it's people.

[PBVBROOK]

This is what I interpreted the original poster as referring to. He wasn't claiming that it was part of some sinister totalitarian conspiracy, but that we were being subjected to ever more surveillance and control simply because it was possible, and there are always practical and ostensibly benign reasons that can be found for doing so.

You are quite right. (And Weber.) To some extent this is inevitable. The simple reason that we can do it will almost always mean we will do it. Particularly when there is a financial incentive to do it.

For DDM: Give me a break. What kind of logic could you use that would assert that the government CAN'T safeguard personal information? Your completely naive understanding of who "the government" is renders your notion meaningless. Of course I would say that any idiot could see that the private health care companies that have your information now are no better and probably worse. I could also say that any idiot could see that having no insurance is the strongest form of rationing. And, of course, private, profit driven, health insurance companies are rationing care now.

I don't need protection from Google, the FBI, or the local police.

I think you do. That is why we have a constitution and laws protecting privacy.

As a former fed, why should I give a shit? They know everything about me, anyway.

Actually they don't. And it not only an issue of what the government (and don't forget we are talking state, county and local too) or a private company knows but also what they do with the information and with whom they are allowed to share it.

If you think the Privacy Act is the source of your difficulty, what do you propose for dealing with the very obvious and real danger of motherfuckers trying to crash airplanes into buildings, blow them up in mid-air, etc?

I don't think the privacy act is the source of the problem nor do I believe the patriot act is. I think they are symptoms of it. How did the US deal with threats before? We utterly destroyed those who harmed us. If the Saudis knew that their support for terrorism would result in the deposing of the government and the destruction of their dynasty I doubt they would be supporting terror. We should have deposed the Saudi King, occupied their country, silenced the clerics who are preaching death to Americans and taken their oil to pay for our trouble.

Our problem is not with 90 year old women and 5 year old kids who are being searched at the airports. It is our political correctness that is getting them searched. We should take the war to the terrorists AND THOSE WHO PREACH DEATH TO AMERICA. Wherever they are. Unless they hide in China or Russia there is not a government on earth that could stop us from doing that.

But WRT the patriot act. If the act was limited to only collecting and sharing information about terrorism I could live with it. But under the guise of the patriot act all manner of law enforcement actions are being undertaken. I oppose spying on Americans without a specific warrant.

My caution is not about preventing the Government from protecting us but rather in limiting what they can do with information. As Dismal Scientist says, the march toward more and more government and private invasion of our privacy is inevitable. Unless we take steps to limit it.

[Huntster]

Thanks for the response. With respect:

I don't need protection from Google, the FBI, or the local police.

I think you do. That is why we have a constitution and laws protecting privacy.

While I can agree that constitutional provisions and laws protecting privacy are needed and valid, and I will be among the first to admit that government and other powerful entities can and will violate individual privacies if these laws didn't exist, the fact is such laws do exist. While the Patriot Act loosened restrictions on government, it was passed with a sunset provision, and it was passed in an environment preceeding the most damaging terrorist attack in world history. Under such circumstances, I don't see current security being too far out of what should be expected.

As a former fed, why should I give a shit? They know everything about me, anyway.

Actually they don't.

Actually, they do. They even have their own set of medical records on me. They literally know what the inside of my colon looks like. They have my fingerprints. They have my dental records. They have files full of my handwriting. They have files of my professional notes. They drug tested me for decades (IOW, they even have/had samples of my urine). They have my education records. They have a copy of my marriage certificate. Copies of my children's birth certificates. They even have a couple of my passwords (for government records). They've conducted psychological exams on me. I've signed non-disclosure statements (IOW, I know some shit on them, too..........)

I think they know me inside and out.

And it not only an issue of what the government (and don't forget we are talking state, county and local too) or a private company knows but also what they do with the information and with whom they are allowed to share it.

Indeed. I did run into a situation where the FBI shared information on me with Canadian officials.

I was not happy. I'm still on the offensive on that one. They've got their heels in the dirt. I don't think they broke any laws, but I don't think they actually want to put on paper what they did and what authorized them to do it because that would be as damaging as breaking laws.

Don't think I'm afraid of them. As long as I'm legal (and I am), it's the other way around. And I will be on them like a pit bull until they write down the magic words.

If you think the Privacy Act is the source of your difficulty, what do you propose for dealing with the very obvious and real danger of motherfuckers trying to crash airplanes into buildings, blow them up in mid-air, etc?

I don't think the privacy act is the source of the problem nor do I believe the patriot act is. I think they are symptoms of it. How did the US deal with threats before? We utterly destroyed those who harmed us. If the Saudis knew that their support for terrorism would result in the deposing of the government and the destruction of their dynasty I doubt they would be supporting terror. We should have deposed the Saudi King, occupied their country, silenced the clerics who are preaching death to Americans and taken their oil to pay for our trouble.

I can't disagree, however, I'm sure plenty around the world would not like that solution too much. You saw and heard the whining over Bush and Iraq. Imagine if it was Saudi Arabia. Mecca and Medina both. "It's for the oil". Etc, etc, ad nauseum.

It might have been the Big Party, if you know what I mean.............

Our problem is not with 90 year old women and 5 year old kids who are being searched at the airports. It is our political correctness that is getting them searched. We should take the war to the terrorists AND THOSE WHO PREACH DEATH TO AMERICA. Wherever they are. Unless they hide in China or Russia there is not a government on earth that could stop us from doing that.

Amen to all that.

But WRT the patriot act. If the act was limited to only collecting and sharing information about terrorism I could live with it. But under the guise of the patriot act all manner of law enforcement actions are being undertaken.

That isn't my understanding. The Patriot Act came with strong limitations on it's applicability, didn't it?

I oppose spying on Americans without a specific warrant.

I generally support that statement, but I don't have a problem with, for example, "scanning" for keywords in a public arena like the internet. I don't have a problem with public systems (like library internet systems) having strong security and monitoring.

My caution is not about preventing the Government from protecting us but rather in limiting what they can do with information.

I can support that goal.