Reply #18: Fix the Facts - Twist the Law [View All]

[Stalwart]

Snip:

"The practice of sifting through mountains of privately collected data on phone calls and Internet communications raises legal issues. Although the contents of calls and e-mails are protected, courts have ruled that "metadata" -- basic records of calls and e-mails kept by phone companies -- are not."

We know how they fixed the facts before.

This is how they could twist the law:..

"The content of calls and emails are protected" (Our rights protected by law).

My money in the bank is also protected. So is my medical information. So are chemical weapons by separating them into part A and B until authorized for use. So is all the secret information we do not know about it. Last of all, so is what we say and write in our communications, until a warrant is obtained to listen to them.

If no third party ever knows or is able to learn what we privately say and write or said or wrote without our permission then it is protected until the law and legal procedures remove that protection.

If content of what we say and write is stored on a computer and it is protected until there is a warrant to look and listen then the content, as well as the associated right, has been protected. That is what government does: protect us and that is the most important thing, especially because we are in a war on terrorism. The government is doing many things to protect us that we don't and cannot know about. (Have to shoot us if we did?). If we knew then the terrorists would know.

So what is the difference between listening and looking at real time communications with a warrant or past communications content on a data base with a warrant? Both are protected. (twisted law and twisted thinking)

What is wrong is to unilaterally decide what is best for protection of our constitutional rights. However, 9/11 changed everything and the means of protecting our rights are too complicated for the public to understand, the government understands the safeguards. It can safeguard nuclear weapons and we do not need to know how.

The government failed us and fears doing so again. Has it convinced itself that it must record everything that is said and written, at least by the usual suspects, even if they are American citizens? When the next terrorists strike then "special rules related to special circumstances" will allow the government to comb through the data base of communication content without the need for warrants. Like martial law for information.

Not knowing who the next terrorists are until they strike, the most likely communication content of citizens, since terrorists hide among us, has to be stored (and protected) so the government can find terrorists and their associates.

A government's gotta do what a government's gotta do.

If a government goes to war by fixing facts and claiming to protect us and freedom then how unreasonable is it that the government is retaining communications content of its citizens ( with protection by its twisted thinking) in order to protect us and our freedom?

Some would think that is not right (or a right of the government) and they are going to say so. I think we are on the verge of learning how far the government has gone to "protect" us and our rights.

Funny how government capture and protection of all (or as much as technology currently allows for a selected sub group) communication content of American citizens in a data base until a warrant is obtained to look and listen is going to be blown by somebody that reveals this top secret (if the government doing it). Nothing can be protected that well and revelation itself will prove it.

I think the government has to let trees fall without hearing them (unless there is a warrant to listen when they fall) not intentionally record the sound of all trees falling for later listening ( with a warrant). That means that once the tree has fallen there is never any future ability to hear it but there is always the ability to examine the resulting evidence.

Unfortunately, this is a position that would cost the lives of some Americans that would otherwise be spared if the government could look and listen without restriction to the communications content in a vast data base. What are we willing to give or give up? It is our decision on our rights, not that of our government.

There are big bucks to be made in what it takes to capture and retain information, anonymize it and sift it later, when allowed. In many ways, factors that play in the war are playing here.

Fix the facts, twist the law. For what purpose?