Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I do value privacy. I value the type of privacy that matters to me. I don't expect my phone calls to be private. Don't expect my mail to be private, email, smoke signals or any form of communication that involves another party. However, I do find the intrusion by the government into my financial life to be more of a concern. For example if I have a nanny for my child why does the government need to be involved in what I pay him or her? Why do they need to even know I employ one? Why I am I responsible for his or her taxes? I really find it ironic how one form of a privacy invasion is o.k. and another is not. That is one my points.
|
Right, and that's fine, but a lot of people (myself included) feel it's an important part of being in a free society to have the ability to communicate without a nanny state monitoring everything. It's as if we're being punished for being untrustworthy even though we never did anything wrong. I never emailed or said over the phone anything illegal, therefore I shouldn't be monitored unless the monitoring body has probable cause to investigate me. Frankly, I see my concerns over private communication as being very, very similar to your concerns about financial privacy. Why does the government need to know you have a nanny? Why does the government need to know that I need to call and tell my friend that I can't hang out because I had something come up at work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I know they broke the original FISA law, but then they changed it. Breaking the law is not the point of my confusion. Nor is my confusion based on valuing privacy. My confusion is based on what harm resulted from the violation of the law. First, I am not sure anyone's privacy was actually violated who was not worthy of investigation. Secondly I am not sure any innocent party was actually harmed. So, I think when we have a privacy rights issue for the government to deal with and if at first the government handles it incorrectly, then needed adjustments are made, we are left with the legitimate issue of redress. However, I think redressing the issue should involve real victims and real damages. I don't see the legal basis for 'the government screwed up, therefore I am entitled to something' when I was not a victim, when I was not harmed. For example - Being "spied" on is one thing, being wrongly harmed as a result of being "spied" on is another and would be the basis of redress in my opinion.
|
They broke the FISA. Regardless of whether or not it's changed after the fact, a law has been broken. You don't break a law until it's not a law anymore, that's just how it works. The fact that it provided retroactive immunity is pretty fucking disgusting and is a bastardization of the process of creating and obeying laws.
As roachboy said, because there's been such little transparency on this issue, combined with the fact that the previous administration demonstrated again and again and again that it wasn't trustworthy at least requires some form of investigation to see what they did. If they were responsible (and hell freezes over), that's great. If not, some people need to be prosecuted.
I'll put this in different terms. Let's say you have a very, very rich uncle that you never met, but that left you a hefty sum in his will. Before his will can be executed, someone robs the accounts of the money that was going to be given to you. You never find out about it. Have you been robbed? Of course. Similarly, anyone innocent that was monitored without probable cause was robbed of his or her privacy without even knowing it. Their lack of awareness doesn't negate the crime. I'm saying that being spied upon is the harm. I know you're not comfortable with that conclusion, but it's on the Bill of Rights and in tons of court decisions. We have a constitutional right to privacy. Just like I'll defend the Second Amendment even though I disagree with it, you should recognize that a right named in the Constitution is just as legitimate regardless of whether or not you value it.