Dr. Jeff’s not so excellent privacy thread!

Robert F. Baumer, CISSP • To be honest, I do not see a problem with the NSA. As most of you know, many for-profit businesses collect our transactions, collect our purchases, and collect our phone records, our TV watching habits and probably more we do not know. The company’s likely sell of portions of this data with our permission (read fine print of contracts). Most companies are required to archive the data for a period of time and to be honest, we do not know if it is destroyed or data mined for potential sale. The problem as I see it is almost impossible to explain things to a polarized country.

Dr. Jeffrey S. Czarnec • Robert- You have to admit that there is a unique difference between the marketing objectives of Macy’s and those of an agency with powers off arrest.

Jim Prouty • Jeffrey, the NSA have no powers of arrest. FBI yes.

Dr. Jeffrey S. Czarnec • Correct. It was a blanket statement as info sharing occurs and may result in an arrest, etc.

Jim McGuffey, CPP, PSP, PCI • I have no issue with NSA using every resource available to prevent terrorist attacks. If you are up to criminal activity not related to terrorism and the information is used against you, it’s difficult to feel sorry for those people.

Robert F. Baumer, CISSP • What I see is a disregard for ethics in Snowden, he and anyone decided to sign on the dotted line. These people have their own agendas as we are likely to see going down the road. This man, learning Russian will likely go to work for them…. He will continue to spew uncorroborated information, meaning it his word against the NSA vs. a foreign newspaper and unethical so called analyst who broke many rules to get the information.

Martin Hershkowitz • Gentlemen: Those of us who have lived professionally (and often socially as well) under the all seeing eye (and ear) it becomes such a matter of fact that you rarely think about it. Those who do not (have not) react in a paranoid manner — why? what is it for? what are they going to do with it? why me!?! Those who have reason to worry become legalistic against the “eye” and the “ear.” I have known a few who were guilty of just being stupid and who spent their professional and social lives in virtual darkness because of fear of being spied on.The two traitors of news merit weren’t afraid as they knew how to protect themselves from the eye and the ear through extraordinary care. They were exposed through plain stupidity, such as boasting.My suggestion to those neophytes is to act normal, be normal, don’t do questionable or stupid things and don’t join or support groups who are opposed to the well-being of our nation. It’s okay to complain about politicians, political parties, government programs, government employees, your boss, just don’t act against any of them.

Dr. Jeffrey S. Czarnec • Mr.Hershkowitz – What are “questionable or stupid things”? What or who are support groups and who defines what they with regard to opposition to the well-being of our nation? I agree that we have many an enemy, but isn’t it our Constitutional right to challenge the government if they fail to represent the interests of the people?

Robert F. Baumer, CISSP • So the question needs to be asked, were should we stand in the world? To many people want to challenge….. Just take a look at the white house petition page. Most of the challenges represent small fringes of the country. So who dictates what is in the interest of the people? I for the most part have no problems with what the NSA is doing. The question begs to be asked, is it because of the current president that we are quick to challenge? I would guess yes. This is definitely a hot topic and we should respect all views.

Richard Goodman • Ok…I guess I will take a somewhat contrary view on this. When our founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they had just finished a war with a tyrannical government. The British were allowed searches without warrants, to billet their troops in people’s homes, and it was a crime to speak out against the king among other things. They had a real fear of that happening again, so wrote the protections into the Constitution. What the NSA does to ferret out terroristic threats is well and good, but how far do you let it go before it crosses a line? There is no transparency in it; the court is “secret” (can you say Star Chamber) and there’s no public guidelines as to what would bring you under scrutiny. With all the distrust in our government for the past decade or so, it’s not a giant leap to start thinking that whoever is in power could abuse this system and use it to stifle or persecute their opposition. I also understand the position of “if you don’t have anything to hide then you have nothing to fear” however things that we say or do today could become “illegal” in the future. In some cases all it takes is an Executive Order.

Gary Smith • People who fear being watched are the people who fear what they are doing. America is always under high alert because we are in constant war ether the Middle East or a nerd in his room cooking up a cyber attack

Christopher Delich, PMP • Those who say that Americans shouldn’t be afraid of being under surveillance, unless one is doing something illegal, are promoting a fundamentally UN-American view. There is a reason why we have a Fourth Amendment and a Bill of Rights. Specifically we have a Fourth Amendment because of a kind of all-purpose search warrant that the British used to grant in our colonial history. Americans are right to be concerned about this and about violations of the rights granted to us by the constitution. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. For those of you that still don’t get it, that includes you non-hackers who say the government should be able to watch everything that citizens do without a search warrant.

Bob Mueck • The real issue is interpreting the Constitution as it applies to the technology of today. Our founding fathers never imagined what we have today, and the role of the courts is to interpret the Constitution to fit today’s issues. That is the system the founding fathers set up, and it works today. That is the very role of the US Supreme Court and other courts as well. It is an ever and on-going issue to balance Constitutional rights with those things we have all around us. It is a constant learning process…but that does not make it illegal.

And Gary – very much agree.

Dr. Jeffrey S. Czarnec • Mr.Smith/Mr.Mueck – As a retired police officer and defender of the Constitution, please be more specific when you either say or support the statement,”People who fear being watched”. In addition, additional dialogue is needed when “doing something illegal” is part of the justification for the invasion of privacy. I understand the state of affairs that we live in quite well, but as Benjamin Franklin so aptly stated,”they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”