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.

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.