NSA Surveillance – Should You be Afraid, Very Afraid?

A big news story broke this week by The Guardian (a U.K. news source) about the U.S. NSA surveillance program called “PRISM.” (Don’t ask me if PRISM is an acronym for anything because if it is, I surely can’t find it. ) Apparently, the NSA has been collection phone records of Verizon customers. Later, there were more reports that the NSA also has access to everyone’s emails and Internet activity such as a person’s search history, videos, photos, etc.  As my mind races to think of all the web sites I’ve accessed just in the last week – even accidentally – my initial response to this news is alarm.

What’s happened to privacy, or, as some say, our right to privacy? Technically. The US Constitution’s Bill of Rights does not specifically grant a right to privacy. While the 4th Amendment provides for protection from unreasonable search and seizure, it never mentions privacy. The Bill of Rights does mention “liberty,” which many believe implies a right to privacy. The privacy issue has always been a gray area but some laws are written in keeping with the spirit of a personal privacy.

Should you be worried that the government may be looking over your shoulder? Yes – and no. The argument that if you’re not doing anything wrong you should not be worried is nonsensical; one may not be doing anything wrong but someone who doesn’t know you may think you are, and you may find yourself in trouble over nothing. I’m reminded of a review of a TV show I posted a few years ago (the show was “24”) and afterwards, my site traffic was filled with hits coming from government web sites located in Washington D.C. I suspect that some of the words I used to describe the activity on the show may have set off alarm bells. (As I don’t want the government looking at my blogs, I’ll refrain from repeating those words here. ) Bottom line is that, in my opinion, the government has been looking at Internet activity for a long time. And for good reason. There are people out there who are using the Internet, phones, computers, tablets, and any technology available, to do bad things. While I don’t like the government scanning my every word, I also want them to catch people who DO mean harm BEFORE they actually can do harm. Most people should have nothing to fear by this government surveillance, so stop worrying about what we sites you visited, or about who you called, or what photos you took.

All that said, there should be a right to privacy – with limits. I believe that if the government wants to actually listen to my phone calls or read my emails, they need to get the proper warrants. I can be more flexible on the issue of them seeing what phone numbers I am calling, or what web sites I visit, or even what books I read, in order to thwart terrorism. This is a tough world we live in, and we need to allow the government the ability to do high-level research in order to help zero in on those who do mean harm. We cannot expect the government to protect us when we tie their hands. Search engines like Google and Yahoo, cell phone companies, and web sites like Twitter and Facebook where many post the most boring minutia of their lives are already collecting data on their users, and some people post way too much information to the public on the Internet. The government would be remiss if they didn’t find a way to tap into that hoard of information. The only way to stop the flow of data to the government and to businesses is to stop using all the technology and stop sharing too much information on the Internet – and I don’t see that happening any time soon.


All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted


Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Political “Miranda” Warning: Everything You Say Can Be Used Against You

© frequentcritic.blogspot.com
Anyone who has watched a TV crime show has heard the police or a detective read the Miranda warning to a person being arrested. The basic Miranda rights are as follows (there are some state variations):

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

Well, maybe it’s time to have something like the Miranda warning to cover political commentary, geared to politicians, journalists, the media, bloggers, Twitter and Facebook users – well, let’s just say everybody who wants to make any public statement, political or otherwise. This warning could be something very simple, something like what I have developed here:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to your own opinions, but you will be accountable for them and others have the right to disagree with you. If you understand these rights as they have been given to you, then go ahead and say or write whatever you want.

Here in the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. People should not confuse this with being able to say anything one wants without consequence. I am perplexed when politicians make statements or post things on their website (or on Facebook or Twitter) and then they become upset or defensive when others hold them accountable for what they say. To rewrite a metaphor: those whose political lives live by their words and actions, their political lives can die by those same words and actions. The lesson here is that there may be times when one should just remain silent.



© frequentcritic.blogspot.com

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Freedom of Speech/Religion Means Freedom to Make Bad Choices

I’m a little tired of hearing all the media coverage about the a pastor of a tiny church who wants to have a Qur’an (Koran) burning and the Imam who wants to build a mosque/community center near New York City’s 9/11 ground zero.

The media is making big stories out of both issues, and are likely the ones fanning the flames. Yes, the media has the freedom to cover these stories as they see fit, but, in the case of the Qur’an burning pastor, the media has now given it so much exposure that the event may endanger Americans by inciting Muslim radicals. The issue with the mosque being built near the site of the 9/11 terror attack is really a local issue that should have been resolved locally, but the media has made it a national issue.

As the media has already fanned the flames of two small “brush” fires and now have created a forest fire, the only issue left now is what freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, means.

The pastor is clearly within his right to burn whatever he wants to burn – well, as long as where he burns it, an open fire is allowed. Is it a smart thing to burn the Qur’an in protest? NO. It is a senseless act that does nothing but promote religious intolerance. How would the pastor feel if a rabbi decided to burn the New Testament of the Bible? People in the United States have the right to choose their faith (or not follow any religion) and worship without government intervention. The Qur’an has every right to be published and read in the United States, just as the Bible or any other book for that matter, religious or not.

The Imam wanting to build his mosque in New York near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is also within his right to do so. But, considering the sentiment of many in the city who were directly affected by the terrorist attacks, the place the Imam has chosen may not be the best. I do believe if the facility is done right, it could be a step in the healing process, but if it were me, I would not be building it in that location – it would not be worth the constant controversy.

The one lesson that we can learn here is that our freedoms sometimes come with a price. Our freedoms sometimes mean that we are free to make decisions that are not always in the best interests of those around us. It also means that the media is free to cover issues that frankly don’t affect most people. As people sometimes don’t always learn even after repeating mistakes, I don’t think these current situations mean the end to this lesson


All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.