The government might know you're reading this

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/09/3896353/the-government-might-know-youre.html

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Many Americans have said this, or heard it, when discussing the expanded surveillance capabilities the government has claimed since 9/11. But it turns out you should be concerned. Just ask peace activists in Pittsburgh, anti-death penalty activists in Maryland, Ron Paul supporters in Missouri, an anarchist in Texas, groups on both sides of the abortion debate in Wisconsin, Muslim-Americans and many others who pose no threat to their communities. Some of them were labeled as terrorists in state and federal databases or placed on terror watch-lists, impeding their travel, misleading investigators and putting these innocent Americans at risk.

The Fourth Amendment requirement that you must be suspected of wrongdoing before the government searches your private records risks becoming a quaint notion. Congress weakened the laws designed to protect our privacy, while the executive branch secretly re-interprets or simply ignores the law with no consequence. While your privacy is being sacrificed, there's little evidence the new spying programs are catching terrorists.

The question should be, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why is the government snooping on you?"

...

:mad:

[tangent4ronpaul]

These are the programs we know about. Secret government surveillance programs, like the National Security Agency's illegal warrantless wiretapping program, rely on secret re-interpretations of the law to justify ignoring the law. Sen. Ron Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, believes most Americans would be shocked to know how broadly the government interprets the Patriot Act. He recently said there is a "gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says."

There is little evidence these spying programs have thwarted attacks. Inspectors general of key security agencies who reviewed the NSA warrantless wiretapping program found no hard evidence the program made us safer, despite its unprecedented scope. Similarly, though the FBI made close to 150,000 National Security Letter requests from 2003 to 2005, the Department of Justice Inspector General documented only one conviction in a terrorism case using the data during that period, and found no instance in which they helped prevent an actual terrorist plot.

Investigating innocent people doesn't help find guilty people. Spying on innocents makes us less safe by diverting security resources from investigations with actual suspicion of wrongdoing. But rather than learn from these results, the government demands more authority. Last year, it asked to get sensitive records about people's internet use without warrants, and this year, it is proposing a broad new cyber-security scheme allowing communication providers to routinely turn over our private information to the Department of Homeland Security. With so many well-documented cases of abuse, it's long past time for Congress to narrow these surveillance authorities and hold the intelligence agencies publicly accountable.

...

:mad:

[YumYum]

I came on here in 09 and told people I worked for the government and that I was collecting information. I was sent here because I liked Ron Paul, and I could gather info. You know what? There are a lot of people in government who love Ron Paul. But I jumped ship. I stand behind him one hundred per cent even though some of his supporters are dildos. It is his supporters that the government is afraid of and will put in the FEMA camps. I love Ron Paul and believe in him.

[CaptainAmerica]

Well this article is a good after thought...its too late to reverse that garbage. We are above our shoulders in authoritarian government.

[sevin]

I came on here in 09 and told people I worked for the government and that I was collecting information. I was sent here because I liked Ron Paul, and I could gather info. You know what? There are a lot of people in government who love Ron Paul. But I jumped ship. I stand behind him one hundred per cent even though some of his supporters are dildos. It is his supporters that the government is afraid of and will put in the FEMA camps. I love Ron Paul and believe in him.

If there's a major attack or an economic collapse, I'm sure refugees will be directed to FEMA camps, but I don't buy the idea that they'll go door to door gathering liberty activists. It wouldn't be worth the effort and manpower required and would only galvanize the movement.

[WilliamC]

I love my country but I fear my government.

I support UMAL (universal mandatory armament laws)

Don't just question authority, assume it and act on it.

Remember all you government pukes, YOU WORK FOR ME!

[tangent4ronpaul]

If there's a major attack or an economic collapse, I'm sure refugees will be directed to FEMA camps, but I don't buy the idea that they'll go door to door gathering liberty activists. It wouldn't be worth the effort and manpower required and would only galvanize the movement.

The cost of body bags alone would bankrupt them. Mostly for them.

[roho76]

Hi, government.

[roho76]

I love my country but I fear my government.

I support UMAL (universal mandatory armament laws)

Don't just question authority, assume it and act on it.

Remember all you government pukes, YOU WORK FOR ME!

I mentioned this in another thread. I don't like mandates but if we're gonna pass mandates then mandatory gun carry is one I would be less upset about.