Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

[JeffWartman]

We're on the slow march toward authoritarianism, and anyone who supports the erosion of our liberties need to understand that they are destroying the United States as we know it.



Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
Nov 11 02:36 PM US/Eastern
By PAMELA HESS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007....
Full Story: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SRKO580&show_article=1

 

[Annie]

We're on the slow march toward authoritarianism, and anyone who supports the erosion of our liberties need to understand that they are destroying the United States as we know it.



Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
Nov 11 02:36 PM US/Eastern
By PAMELA HESS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007....
Full Story: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SRKO580&show_article=1

and yet so many Democrats and Europeansthink that simply removing Bush from office will make everything 'fine,' as per their definitions. There will be little change in the one area of serious concern to the government, WOT. In that way, nothing changes much.

 

[JeffWartman]

and yet so many Democrats and Europeansthink that simply removing Bush from office will make everything 'fine,' as per their definitions. There will be little change in the one area of serious concern to the government, WOT. In that way, nothing changes much.

It's not all Bush's fault. Hillary Clinton would be no better. The problem is that the system is set up to elect people who will continue the slow march to totalitarianism.

 

[Alpha1]

Of course you see no danger the our swift march toward Socialism over the last 70 years....?

 

[JeffWartman]

Of course you see no danger the our swift march toward Socialism over the last 70 years....?

It appears obvious you have a complete lack of the ability to comprehend simple English.

If you paid attention, you'd know that I am much more laissez-faire then you are. You are Mao Zedong compared to me.

 

[Diuretic]

and yet so many Democrats and Europeansthink that simply removing Bush from office will make everything 'fine,' as per their definitions. There will be little change in the one area of serious concern to the government, WOT. In that way, nothing changes much.

I won't comment on a purely US domestic issue - but my concerns with the Bush Administration are on foreign policy. That's where much of my criticism goes.

 

[Annie]

I won't comment on a purely US domestic issue - but my concerns with the Bush Administration are on foreign policy. That's where much of my criticism goes.

And that was my point, there will be little change on WOT.

 

[eots]

And that was my point, there will be little change on WOT.

it is done in increments so as not to seen like drastic change and it works very well