Chris, I have at least a billion unenumerated rights, including the right to shout "theater!" in a crowded fire, and the keep and bear pseudoephedrine HCL, and they exist regardless of any unconstitutional laws. You going on about being a libertarian and then saying how we have never had theses right is ringing a little hollow right about now.

This is way different that getting the dialing records of one person that you reasonably suspect of being a criminal.

And hey, what about this law? http://tinyurl.com/qd7by

It's freaking wrong. It needs to be changed, whether or not it hurts bush. Fortunately, our congress-critters are considering having hearings. I feel relived already!
Standard Mischief | Email | Homepage | 05.13.06 - 12:04 pm | #

I don't care whether it hurts Bush or not, the point is that it is not now, nor has it ever been illegal for them to do this; and there is a very good legal reason why not.

I make a clear distinction as to moral justification; I dont think there is a moreal jsutification for this; but it is legally justified.

Do I WANT the government to do this? No I don't; however we have constructed a government that CAN do this.

As to a so called right to privacy, no there is no right to privacy if you mean that all others must repsect YOUR privacy and not use the means they have available to abrogate it. That so called right simply does not exist.

That said, we have the right to HIDE anything we want, from whomever we want, for whatever reason.

Additionally, we have the right to not be COMPELLED to share information we do not wish to share; assuming we hold that information alone, or in concert with other parties who also agree to keep that information private. However if there is a party to the information who does not agree, then if we continue to share information with that party, we no longer have any legitimate expectation of privacy.

Privacy is not an inherent right, it is a social construct. It is a useful, and important construct; but the only privacy we have an absolute right to is the privacy of private property; and whatever occurs entirely therein.
Chris Byrne | Email | Homepage | 05.14.06 - 1:27 am | #

[i]Oh and if you want privacy, here are Six-ish words: Encrypted IP Telephony, Pre-paid Mobile Phone.[/i]

Even if you BUY a set of phone scramblers (and didn't make them yourself), the NSA has the ability to decrypt them (because they meet government standards for sale - and that's one of the criteria to allow them for sale). The local people and phone company don't but the BIG boys do.

And if you decided to make them yourself, you better know what you're doing because the processing hosepower the government has WILL crack it unless you build it implementing something like 2048 bit encryption (or better) because someone has already shown they can break 1024 bit keys.
308Mike | Email | Homepage | 05.14.06 - 11:19 am | #

"Oh and if you want privacy, here are Six-ish words: Encrypted IP Telephony, Pre-paid Mobile Phone."

Who are you going to call, then? Lol... Whose phone network is that Mobile Phone using? IP Telephony that enters the PSTN is still "fair" game for this data-mining.

This entire situation is due to the acquiesence of the major phone co.'s. If they had said, "ummm, no," what would the NSA be doing?

Qwest's recalcitrance is based on what? Hating Bush, or on the fact that their customer contracts DON'T in fact authorize them to "share" transaction records?

You've got the criminal side covered pretty well. What about the civil contract between a telco and its customer? Don't define the telco as a "3rd party to the communication," define the telco as the contractual partner of the person who placed the call. I would certainly stipulate that the caller's records are appropriately turned over to the government in Warrant situations, but absent a Warrant, have I authorized the government to be a 3rd party to our (the telco and myself) contractual relationship? ...apparently Qwest feels the same way...
mujadaddy | Email | Homepage | 05.14.06 - 5:34 pm | #

I don't care whether it hurts Bush or not, the point is that it is not now, nor has it ever been illegal for them to do this; and there is a very good legal reason why not.

Yea, well I'm not 100% sure it's legal.

I make a clear distinction as to moral justification; I dont think there is a moreal jsutification for this; but it is legally justified.

Do I WANT the government to do this? No I don't; however we have constructed a government that CAN do this.

fair enough, sorry I was skimming here. Red Curtain of Blood.

As to a so called right to privacy, no there is no right to privacy if you mean that all others must repsect YOUR privacy and not use the means they have available to abrogate it. That so called right simply does not exist.

I see your point about companies reselling your buying history. There is a line somewhere though, as even if a company legally got hold of my SS# or my credit report, they have no right to plaster that info publicly on a billboard.

Anyway, I blogged about this entry, but you trackback doesn't seem to be working.
Standard Mischief | Email | Homepage | 05.15.06 - 11:55 am | #

I've seen some limited effects of 'data mining' (I'm going to use the term loosly). I have saved practically every email since the turn of the century, not for any particular reason other than I havnet run out of space yet. When BS'ing with friends its a piece of cake for me to search back several years and find every comment they have ever made regarding a particular subject. I pull these old messages out and call thier bluff. Its all in fun, but its a bit scary too because without thousands of archived emails its a game we would be unfamiliar with. That percieved privacy you refer to, which never really existed, but somehow... it did. Much like lying by ommision. Nobody expects to be held to what they said in casual emails four years ago.

Now, I dont see anything in your post that I disagree with. Collecting metadata from the phone companies isnt real scary stuff, though I'd still prefer they didnt do it (in the sense that were one step closer to 'that line in the sand'). I dont give my phone number to ANY company, ever, except for my dentist. I dont subscribe to prefered customer cards, and dont shop at Jewel for that reason. I've seen how fast and uncontrolled the sale of personal info is, try mispelling your name differently at several places and watch the junk mail that comes in! Thats an interesting game.

I dont expect we'll see any "bad things" happen as a result of big government databases any time soon. But if the trends continue, someday that entire database could be availible on the laptop of every squad car (technically, its achievable today) so that when your pulled over an officer would know you purchased four cans of diced pineapple at the local supermarket fifteen minuets ago using your visa, and called X five minutes ago, passed through lane 6 of the I-56 toll, and....

Improbable uses of uninteresting data, yes, but added all together it paints a pretty detailed picture of our personal lives. Data points will exist for each person at least a few times every day, added up this is as good as having a live person trail your every move. THAT, I suspect, is something we all hope requires more than somebody running a database query on a whim.
ILTim | Email | Homepage | 05.15.06 - 2:52 pm | #