Surveillance and Privacy Debate Reaches Pivotal Moment in Congress (11dc-surveillance) (11dc-surveillance) (11dc-surveillance)

I know this is very selfish of me, but I’d like an Amendment to the Bill guaranteeing the Privacy Rights of all of us - with the exception of Trump and his enablers and sycophants. Failing that, how about a separate bill guaranteeing that Trump and his enablers be surveilled from now to Kingdom come? Or maybe Gail Collins can come up with a funny column to this effect?

Section 702 will be extended, and the terrorists will have won another round. The idea of terrorism isn't to kill and maim, it is to alter you're way of life.

There are a number of ways to protect your phone. There are apps that encrypt your text message and VPNs that do the rest.

We all fear what a paranoid President might do if he could listen to what his political enemies say behind closed doors? However, I fear the age of Big Brother is Watching is already upon us. Who is to say that smart phones and google home etc. are not capable of listening already. We know surveillance cameras are everywhere and almost everybody has a smart phone that we know can track our movements, and the technology exists to listen to our every word, and I hear that there is technology available to identify us by facial recognition software and even turn on our webcams without us knowing it. This law is just a way to make it legal to do what we know can be done. Remember, as Russia has used hackers to influence the presidential elections, we can use hackers to get into the same systems for any purpose a corrupt president feels necessary and deny he knows anything about it. Morale of story: It's not the law that we have to closely examine, it's the morality, integrity and honesty of who we elect that is important.

If the existing N.S.A. laws help prove collusion between anyone in the Trump administration and Russia, then the law will have "paid for itself". The only people who really need fear privacy laws are those doing illegal activiites themselves or nefarious politicos going after their purported enemies.

We all fear what a paranoid President might do if he could listen to his political enemies. However, I fear the age of Big Brother is Watching is already upon us. Who is to say that smart phones and google home etc. are not capable of listening. We already have surveillance cameras just about everywhere and almost everybody has a smart phone that we know can track our movements, and the technology exists to listen to our every word, and I hear that there is technology available to identify us by facial recognition software and even turn on our webcams without us knowing it. This law is just a signal of what is already available and ready to use if not being used to spy on anybody we want to spy on. Remember, as Russia has used hackers to influence the presidential elections, we can use hackers to get into the same systems for any purpose a corrupt president feels necessary to promote his agenda and deny he knows anything about it. Morale of story: It's not the law that we have to closely examine, it's the integrity and honesty of who we elect that makes is important.

I don't really care about the laws of the US because they are implemented by criminals. Therefore it matters not what the law is. I'll say what I want and no fascist dimwit in the government is going to intimidate me. When they make me a criminal then I have justification for any action since I will know that I have a moral obligation to fight by any means. The flabby and weak politicians better watch what they do. I don't fear their secret police or the fascist army of slave herders we call police officers.

Since the vote is now in, a sizeable number of Democrats approved this. Just an FYI.

The wholesale cancellation of personal privacy protection by legislation related to September 11, 2001 concerns was perpetrated by the GOP after those terrorist attacks. This began the policy of government by fear, which Congress demonstrated as it rushed to pass laws revoking or limiting our civil rights in the name of security. So many quotes to choose from (SCOTUS Justice Brandeis on sunlight comes to mind) but I will use only the words of Benjamin Franklin, who said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

How did we arrive at the point when our elected leaders can't seem to be able to distinguish between positions and interests? Isn't it demeaning for everyone that all we need to know about a pol is the D or R after the name to understand their entire governing philosophy? One can only progress in elected office with an open mind and a willingness to compromise. Lacking that, voters will have the final say.

Just think of the gillions upon gillions of terrorists that have been caught, tried, and convicted as a result of this law. Wow. Wait, how many, let's see, can't think of any offhand. I'm sure it will come to me later. When reading articles like this it reminds me of the good ole "Freedom Fries" days.

I write charged political comments all the time; here, in emails, and on protest signs. We let our fear after 9/11 capsize the very rights which really keep our country safe. Sometimes I pause at the keyboard, knowing that if Trump truly had his way, I and millions of others would be punished. But then I type my conscience anyway, because speaking up for justice and the common good is more important now than at any point in my lifetime. Articles like this point to a chilling effect on free speech and true freedom. Speak your mind. Speak it clearly and fearlessly, in any forum. The more who do without reservation, the safer the rest of us will be.

It is too late. They have been in our boardrooms and bedrooms for decades now. Look up Room 641A of the ATT building in San Francisco and check the date. Those are illegal taps on everything being communicated from voice to text to video to pure data. Bush, Ashcroft, and Gonzales should be in Guantanamo.

As a former technician for the Electronic Battlefield in Vietnam, (Igloo White), I understand the technology and the dangers of it. It is too powerful to be in the hands of politicians, whose use of it can cause great danger to Democracy. While on a Federal Grand Jury in the George W Bush Years, I learned to not trust the Department of Justice as it was then constituted.

Legislation or no, it is always best to assume that every bit of digital communication you sent is essentially public information--or in the very least open to government scrutiny. I include this very comment. There is no such thing as personal privacy any more. It would be nice if rules-of-access were tightened, but in the bigger picture it doesn't matter much. Elvis left the building a long time ago.

Interesting that Devin Nunes is protesting this action, and even more interesting how narrowly defined his protests are. It's as if Nunes has something he doesn't want exposed to the broader public. Can't imagine what that would be. Maybe something connected to actions Nunes might have taken during his time as part of the executive committee of President-elect Donald Trump's transition team?