Would You Sacrifice Your Privacy for National Security?

[Mrs Behavin]

Does our national security come at a price? Do you think the government should have expanded access to people's personal information in order to track potential terrorists?
The USA PATRIOT Act gave law enforcement agencies more freedom to search telephone, e-mail, and other personal records. Do you think the PATRIOT Act makes America safer?

 

[GraceAbounds]

I already sacrifice my privacy for security. Every time I walk into a retail store I'm on candid camera. When I am driving on the highway they are snapping pictures. At the airport I'm getting the pat down and the x ray.

I don't have an answer for questions in the OP.

I want for the powers that be to have the tools in order to catch people that are up to no good, but at the same token ... how far is too far?

Would they have been able to prevent 9/11 if they had more tools in which to do their job? I don't know. I do know that many have been thwarted since 9/11 and for that I am glad.

 

[Natasha]

I'm not sure. I can get behind a National ID b/c I have nothing to hide...but as far as personal e-mails and stuff like that goes, that's too much. Sure, I have nothing to hide...but it doesn't mean I want people listening to my personal conversations or reading my personal e-mails.

 

[teh_fuzz]

We already have no privacy and if the govt. wants to they can invade it so... i'd be willing to sacrifice it for a safer feeling

 

[Minor Axis]

Allowing the FBI to get lists of books titles checked out by library patrons is total BULL SHIT. If you want a reason to be scared about your civil liberties, this is a good one. I don't know if this part of the Patriot Act has been rescinded or not.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I think in the end it's better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Tim]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Spoken by a true patriot, Benjamin Franklin

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Good ole Benjamin.

 

[Josef]

Its a spurious question because security can never be guaranteed, no matter how many civil liberties are lost.

 

[Minor Axis]

Here ya go, the long slide down the slippery slope from 070308 USA Today. At least someone wants it. Who in the White House, Justice Dept, or FBI I wonder?

Religious profiling is just as bad as racial profiling...


AP IMPACT: Race profiling eyed for terror probes
Posted 2d 2h ago | Comment | Recommend E-mail | Save | Print |
By Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.
Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike.

Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.

Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons -- like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated -- to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person's race or ethnicity.

 

[Dana]

No...

 

[Obdurate]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Spoken by a true patriot, Benjamin Franklin

Word. Patriots used to be people who stood up for something, who fought the injustices of their country. Now it seems that a lot of them are just nationalists. Yay.

So no, ideally I wouldn't sacrifice my privacy for national security, but it's not like I have much of a choice. Although I don't feel safe, so there you go.

 

[Minor Axis]

Word. Patriots used to be people who stood up for something, who fought the injustices of their country. Now it seems that a lot of them are just nationalists. Yay.

Maybe they are not patriots at all.

 

[Obdurate]

Word, exactly my point.

 

[Tim]

It's funny that the same people I know that will violently defend the 2nd amendment have no problem giving away their 4th amendment rights.

I already sacrifice my privacy for security. Every time I walk into a retail store I'm on candid camera. When I am driving on the highway they are snapping pictures. At the airport I'm getting the pat down and the x ray.

But that's not the privacy we are talking about. When you are in public, your actions are public. But there is a huge difference in being watched by a security camera in a store to having one placed in your home.

I want for the powers that be to have the tools in order to catch people that are up to no good, but at the same token ... how far is too far?

I think this is the main difference in all our opinions here. I think any infringement of the 4th amendment is too far.

 

[Obdurate]

Just since we're talking about cameras, I find it funny when you walk into a store and there's a sign that says (paraphrasing), "This store is equipped with cameras for your safety and security." Mmmhmm.

 

[GraceAbounds]

It's funny that the same people I know that will violently defend the 2nd amendment have no problem giving away their 4th amendment rights.

I think this is the main difference in all our opinions here. I think any infringement of the 4th amendment is too far.

See, I have family in local and federal law enforcement that have had bounties put on their heads by criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, etc. so I am probably biased when it comes to this issue. It is because my family's lives have been threatened that I have felt first hand the fear of not having as many tools as necessary in order to be protected and turn the table on the criminals. This is why I believe that our enforcement officers should have more tools than the criminals when it comes to catching them in order for the officers to protect their own lives and the lives of others.

I do not think it is fair to expect law officers to put their life on the line everyday for the minimal pay they get and then not give them the tools to do it.

But that's not the privacy we are talking about. When you are in public, your actions are public. But there is a huge difference in being watched by a security camera in a store to having one placed in your home.

No one is talking about the government putting a security camera in private homes; at least I wasn't. I wasn't even thinking it.

I don't have an answer for questions in the OP.

As I stated in my previous post, I don't have answers for the OP. I understand each side of the argument. It seems like a no win situation to me. As I said, how far is too far? I don't know. It is slippery slope.

 

[Minor Axis]

See, I have family in local and federal law enforcement that have had bounties put on their heads by criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, etc. so I am probably biased when it comes to this issue. It is because my family's lives have been threatened that I have felt first hand the fear of not having as many tools as necessary in order to be protected and turn the table on the criminals. This is why I believe that our enforcement officers should have more tools than the criminals when it comes to catching them in order for the officers to protect their own lives and the lives of others.

I do not think it is fair to expect law officers to put their life on the line everyday for the minimal pay they get and then not give them the tools to do it.

The types of tools that you appear more than willing to give authorities is the loss of your freedoms. It's not worth it. Giving up civil liberties to expedite security issues is fraught with danger in that you may not get those liberties back, the potential for abuse is huge, and in the main example that the Bush Administration pushed, they were bypassing a court set up specifically to provide oversight to this very important issue. No they didn't want anyone looking over their shoulders. Reports are that legal protocols were shortcutted, bypassed, and facts may have been fabricated to ensure individuals were detained.

So it's a bunch of vile foreigners who don't deserve due process, so what? Unless nipped in the bud, this manner of thinking could easily transform itself into something much more sinister directed at "subversive" Americans. "That's impossible" you say. All you have to do is be found someplace you should not be and you can be declared an enemy combatant, regardless if you are a U.S. citizen or not. The icing on the cake would be detention in Gitmo for a number of years without any civil legal representation.

What I find amazing is that most conservatives don't trust government, but in this case they are more than willing to give up freedoms because somehow they think it's making them safer. So what if it leads to a fascist police state.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Wow, what a way to stretch what I was saying and run off into left field. From your response it doesn't even seem like you really read and absorbed what I posted at all. On top of that, your response attempts to put words in my mouth and then clumps me into a way of thinking of which is not my own. Your desire to be right about I don't know what, as I haven't even stated a strong stance in this thread at all, seems more important to you than having empathy for the personal human experience I was opening up about and sharing with everyone.

I think all people with half a heart would like to know that if their own family member were in law enforcement that their family member would have more tools and resources than the criminals had and that they were protected as well as possible and given all the advantages that they could possibly have in order to do their jobs and then return home safely to their families at the end of the day. That is all I was saying, plain and simple. Thinking this way does not equate to me wanting something that leads to a fascist police state, it equates to me wanting my family to be safe. All people want this. No one is going to enjoy any freedoms or liberties if they are dead.

 

[Hans]

Its hard to argue that it doesnt make American safer, it most definitely does. It should be posted as like, "Is the benefits oferred by the Patriot Act enough to compensate for the loss of personal freedoms?" In any case, I understand the need/want/principles of personal freedoms, however, Id rather sacrifice a little to possibly save ONE life. If ONE life is ever saved from this, Id give it glady. Its not like its anything too extreme anyways.