Would you let your co-workers read your e-mails? Record your phone activity?

[sibelian]

Would you let your next door neighbour read your snail mail?

Would you let the launderette sell information about your clothing choices to supermarkets?

Would you let your boss monitor your keyboard presses?

While we're on the subject of bosses, do you think bosses should be able to test you for drugs?

If not drug testing, why not e-mail monitoring?

Is your boss more or less trustworthy than the US government?

Do you trust the State?

If so, why?

Is it because they're demonstrably trustworthy or because it feels more comfortable than not trusting them?

[Pholus]

1. My usual comeback to "if you got nothing to hide" is....

so why are you wearing clothes right now?

[allin99]

25. almost spit out my food. lol

[In_The_Wind]

2. Not no but no fucking way!

[Logical]

3. But, but, but they trust the NSA. LOL n-t

[JaneyVee]

4. That would be illegal without my permission or without a court ordered warrant.

[frylock]

29. what would preclude you from granting that permission?

[randome]

5. Who says anyone is? Snowden? Why would I take his word for that?

He apparently doesn't understand what a secure FTP server is. He has offered no evidence to support his claim that he had access to the world's communications.

He said he isn't hiding from justice in Hong Kong but he is apparently hiding from justice in Hong Kong.

Why would I believe him?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[reformist2]

6. Then what's his crime.... merely claiming to have state secrets?

[randome]

8. I never said he committed a crime. He is, however, very confused about even basic IT terms.

And he has taken internal NSA documents to Hong Kong, of all places.

No one knows what he has among the 'thousands of documents' he claims to have stolen. When someone proudly announces he has stolen something and runs away, you don't think the authorities would be concerned?

The man has a screw loose.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Pholus]

7. Because "someone" trusted him enough to hire him?

Such an important surveillance program with a high potential for abuse would only be entrusted to the best and brightest and most trustworthy who were carefully vetted for their positions.

Right?

Or are you implying that there is incompetence?

[randome]

9. Damn right I'm implying there is incompetence.

Snowden apparently bamboozled his way through life at an early age. His resume doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

He's very good at what he does, IMO, which is to fake being knowledgeable. I've known many IT contractors who could bullshit their way through life by dropping the right acronyms and putting on a good show, but who rarely produce anything of substance.

I think Snowden fits that profile and it's on the NSA to make sure crap like this doesn't happen again.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Pholus]

10. It's almost as if there is not enough oversight...

But I know that isn't true because as a taxpayer the best information I have (the word of those in charge) is that everything is just peachy!

And I know they have NO reason to sell me a bill of goods on this one!

[randome]

20. That's another conversation that needs to happen.

Ironically, Snowden may have damaged that cause. Because of his ludicrous claims, who is willing to listen to him now?

He's already self-identified as wrong on a lot of other stuff.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Warpy]

12. Well, the real scandal is how much of this stuff is being handled

by for profit corporations with absolutely no oversight on how they conduct their business or what they do with the data they collect.

That's what I want to end, farming US security out to corporations. We know how patriotic, loyal, and law abiding most corporations turn out to be.

[randome]

21. Not a 'scandal', IMO, but definitely a conversation worth having.

But one wonders why Snowden had to steal classified documents and flee to Hong Kong in order to make this point.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

16. No evidence? How about the FISA warrant that we are finally seeing?

You know, the SECRET warrant from the SECRET court, with the SECRET judges, issuing SECRET decisions? You know, the warrant that, ON IT"S FACE grants a request to look at ALL OF VERIZON'S CUSTOMERS COMMUNICATIONS for a number of months. ALL OF THEM. NOT just a foreigner's. ALL OF THEM.

This is a court that's supposed to have jurisdiction over foreigners. And yet it's issuing warrants for Americans' communications.

We are FINALLY seeing one of these secret warrants. FINALLY. Any idea why they would keep the warrants secret? Take a wild guess.

[randome]

18. The warrant referred to phone metadata, not the 24/7 spying Snowden alleges.

Encrypted numbers and date/timestamps with no identifying info. And which they cannot view without a second warrant.

That does not rise to the level of 'hair on fire' to me.

The 'secret' is that all 3 government branches oversee the NSA. If that's not enough, that's a conversation worth having.

But Snowden's ridiculous claim that the NSA is watching our thoughts form as we type and is downloading the Internet on a daily basis are magical delusions more suitable to a Harry Potter novel.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Warpy]

11. I'd refrain from emailing at work

and I was smart enough to delete all my cookies at the end of the shift. I never found a keylogger, it was just better to assume there was one somewhere in the system.

My boss was untrustworthy and would sell us out for a kind look from the CEO as he left for a round of golf during working hours. She had her head way up his butt.

They didn't test us for drugs unless there was a reason to do so, though. I guess it was because those tests cost money they didn't want to spend on us.

I don't trust anybody farther than I can throw a grand piano by one leg. I don't have anything to hide these days, either, but I still don't want to have my life dissected by some government spook.

[Kahuna]

13. False equivalent. I would more liken the NSA's ability to that of the phone company..

Google, Facebook, Amazon.com and the internet in general. Google, Facebook and amazon seemingly know every move I make online.

[sibelian]

19. To whom are these organisations answerable?

To whom is the NSA answerable?

[Kahuna]

24. They apparently disperse our patterns for commercial purposes...So what's

the difference?... Do I prefer commercial invasion of my privacy to show me shoe ads, Macy's, Nordstrom's, Lord & Taylor ads, or for national security? Personally, If my data is going to be collected and dispersed without my permission, I prefer it be done for national security purposes. That's just me though.

ETA, And yes, there are certain things I just won't say online for fear of being monitored. That's just common sense.

[sibelian]

30. "If my data is going to be collected and dispersed without my permission"

Interesting "if" you've got there.

[Kahuna]

31. I stand corrected. "Since".....my data etc... nt

[MineralMan]

14. When it comes to business emails, etc.,

most companies store and monitor emails, etc. constantly. Some monitor keystrokes, as well, although that is less common. Anything you do on a company's network can be monitored by the IT folks at any time. It is, after all the company's hardware and network, and there are even data storage requirements demanded by law in many cases. The same is true for government work environments.

If you are on a network, network admins have and can use the capability to monitor transaction on that network anytime, including personal use of that network. Anyone working on a network computer system should assume that everything they do on that network can and may be stored and examined by the company or organization.

Outside of those environment, everyone should keep in mind that anything transmitted beyond you own personal computer might be intercepted, stored, or examined. Illegal or not, right or not, what you send out is beyond your control as soon as you send it. If you think of it that way, you'll always create and send information in a way that is safe.

In a sense, the same is true of even emails, etc. you send to friends and acquaintances. Any of those can forward your email, store it on their own computers, print it out, and share it in any way they wish. You lost control of it the moment you clicked "Send." If you email someone at their workplace, all of the caveats mentioned above apply.

Bottom line: The only way to keep your communications private is to keep them to yourself.

[whatthehey]

15. In almost all non-tiny companies they already can

And it doesn't break the law or require your permission. In every company I have ever worked since the internet age this has not only been possible but standard. It's their computer after all.

[sibelian]

17. Yes.

I think what I need to establish is whether or not this is a good thing.

[Recursion]

22. I'm a network admin. It's 100% a good thing.

If you want your network to keep working, I have to monitor what people do.

That's a separate question from the NSA, but unmonitored work networks are security nightmares.

[gcomeau]

23. That is an incredibly poor comparison.

There are cameras all over the streets between my house and work, watching intersection after intersection. I drive through them every day. I've do doubt been recorded on them over and over and over going about my business and I do not give the teeny tiniest little shit about it.

Why? Because despite the fact that they are recording me the government didn't set them up to SPY ON ME. They also couldn't give the teeny tiniest little shit about the images of me that keep cruising across those cameras every day. They set them up to watch traffic flow through the intersection and they have a legitimate reason to do that. The fact that I am on those cameras is of zero concern to me whatsoever just as it is of zero interest to them.

Now, one day I might actually run a red light and then someone is going to take a brief momentary interest in me specifically and a ticket may show up in my mailbox. In that case I will give a little bit more of a crap about the fact that the camera was there but I still won;t think it's some authoritarian 1984-esque invasion of my rights and privacy. Because it isn't.


Now, if my NEIGHBOR set up cameras all up and down the street and started specifically monitoring my comings and goings? Yeah, THAT I would have a problem with. They have no legitimate justification for watching my movements so I would have to wonder what NON-legitimate motives were driving them.





Same goes for the NSA. THEY ARE NOT SPYING ON ME ANY MORE THAN THOSE TRAFFIC CAMERAS ARE. They are not reading my mail. They are not listening to my phone calls. They are not following me around seeing who I associate with. They do not care the smallest crap about me any more than they do you. They are monitoring and archiving *large scale international communications traffic* which, again, they have a legitimate justification for doing. I do not give a shit that my communications are part of that traffic and they do not give a shit about me.

Now, it is hypothetically possible that one day I might do something to make them give a shit about me, just like running that red light. I would of course expect that whatever I did was not related to any actual involvement of mine in terrorist activity but it might make them take some small chunk of time out of their day to give me a look and make sure. Would I get all outraged then? No. I. Would. Not. That's their goddamn responsibility. I would have wanted them to do it if something popped up about the Boston Marathon bombers before that happened and if we want it doing it to anyone then everyone has to be subject to the same damn rules. That's how laws work.

If my COWORKER started trying to read my e-mails or listen in on my phone calls? Yeah... little bit different. I would hope the reasons for that were obvious.

[MADem]

26. I always assumed that work product was subject to scrutiny.

That's probably because we answered the phone by saying "This line is not secure and is subject to monitoring" and when we turned on our computers in the morning, we had to click through a "Consent to monitoring" screen before we did anything--write a brief, or read e-mail.

I was subjected to drug tests down the decades, and I didn't like them one bit.

Of course, my boss WAS the US government, so there's that....

Bigger picture, though? You're at work to work. Not to play Angry Birds, not to search e-Bay, make dinner reservations, or to post on DU or any other website. If you want to do that stuff, you need to be your own boss.

[RedstDem]

27. privacy rights has a lot to do with property rights!

Would you let your co-workers read your e-mails? I work in an office, so YES, its the companies property, not mine

Record your phone activity? YES see above

Would you let your next door neighbor read your snail mail? NO, that's mine alone

Would you let the launderette sell information about your clothing choices to supermarkets? YES, it is my property, but who cares what i wear

Would you let your boss monitor your keyboard presses? YES, i assume your referring to their computers, that's their property

While we're on the subject of bosses, do you think bosses should be able to test you for drugs? NO, bodily fluids are my property

If not drug testing, why not e-mail monitoring? ones my property, the other isn't.

Is your boss more or less trustworthy than the US government? probably a lot more

Do you trust the State? NO, who does?

If so, why?

Is it because they're demonstrably trustworthy or because it feels more comfortable than not trusting them?

[FarCenter]

28. Some answers.

Would you let your co-workers read your e-mails?
I knew the Unix SysAdmin and he could read my emails. All our work computers were on a LAN, and many of my coworkers were capable of hacking anyone else's workstation and most likely the servers.

Record your phone activity?
My manager got the call detail records from the PBX. On occasion we were asked to review our staff's calling patterns for abuse of phone privileges.

Would you let your next door neighbour read your snail mail?
Incoming? Almost all of it, especially the stuff that goes directly to recycling. 95% of it is not sealed anyway. Outgoing first class mail is dropped in the post office.

Would you let the launderette sell information about your clothing choices to supermarkets? Yes.

Would you let your boss monitor your keyboard presses?
See above. If your workstation is connected via ethernet or WiFi to a company network, it is likely that either your boss knows how to observe your keypresses or knows someone who knows how.

While we're on the subject of bosses, do you think bosses should be able to test you for drugs?
No, that should be done by corporate medical staff or outsourced to a testing service.

If not drug testing, why not e-mail monitoring? Question does not make sense.

Is your boss more or less trustworthy than the US government? Yes.

Do you trust the State? Depends on the situation.

If so, why? Is it because they're demonstrably trustworthy or because it feels more comfortable than not trusting them?
They can be trusted when their interests coincide with mine.