Americans divided on the issue of security and privacy.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Americans overwhelmingly support aggressive government pursuit of terrorist threats, even if it may infringe on personal privacy, but they divide sharply along partisan lines over the legitimacy of President Bush's program of domestic eavesdropping without court authorization, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly two in three Americans surveyed said they believe that federal agencies involved in anti-terrorism activities are intruding on the personal privacy of their fellow citizens, but fewer than a third said such intrusions are unjustified.

At the same time, however, those surveyed are more narrowly divided over whether the federal government is doing enough to protect the rights of both citizens and terrorism suspects.

It doesn't surprise me when we have people who criticize the govt for not doing enough to protect the American people and then criticizing them for abusing the power to eavesdrop in the name of national security. They should make up their mind. Security or privacy.

I think that the people who think privacy must be sacrificed in the name of security should simply move to a nation where there is no privacy before they think about taking away everyone elses freedoms.

And Bush should lead the way.......

When governments say the word security, that is code. What they really mean is CONTROL. Homeland Security? You know, Hitler had something he called ''Fatherland Security'' or Deutschland Security. ''But, it's good! It provides security for the people....and in order to provide security, we need to have absolute control. No privacy, no rights, no nothing.'' It happened in Germany, and it is in the process of happening now. History is repeating itself. When will the sheeple wake up?

[edit on 11-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

Well it doesn't help when is claims that it was not just "Al-qaida links" but also millions of Americans were under surveillance, I will wait on this one because is still just a claim.

I don't understand why so many Americans were under surveillance if that is true, it kind of make me imagine that it was more than just Al-qaida related communications but also perhaps the government is so paranoid that needed to make sure that was not groups raising to take Bush out of power.

Funny but that was one of the reasons for Nixon to listen to communications he wanted to know who was against him.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by marg6043]

The government can't protect you, they don't have enough people and they can't be there all of the time. Even local cops know they are only there to clean up the mess and make record of it 99% of the time. When you call 911 it's minutes before help arrives. The only person who can protect you is you. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Here's an essay of mine I'd like to share with the community based on the issue of privacy and the steps being "taken" to secure our safety as a nation. I really enjoyed writing this, and I hope you all enjoy it.

Privacy: The Next Great Compromise

The newly formed Union was at a dilemma. To prevent a reoccurence of the tyranny they fought against and won, a balanced system of representation needed to be established. How, with certain states being significantly more populated than others, would this ever happen? Everyone deserves appropriate representation, thus the heavily populated states would outweigh and overpower the smaller states in representatives and voting power. This was the dilemma at the birth of our nation, and a solution was needed lest our enemies exploit the internal bickering and defeat everything we had worked for. The solution? A bicameral legislation, one that would favor all states equally and by populous. We call this today the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

With the insecurities of the nation at such an all time high after the vile terrorist attacks of September 11th, people across the country began demanding higher and more stringent security. The administration obliged, and now we see armed guards in our subways, metal detectors and bomb detection devices at virtually every major transportation hub. But there have been other, more subversive forms of surveillance and security implemented that most people either refuse to or simply don't recognize. These include cameras on street corners, at ATM's, the facial recognition systems installed at some higher security sites. Yet it gets much more invasive than that. Our choice of reading, what we read on line, who we speak too, is all being recorded, without our permission.

The manipulation of current events is one example for the reasoning behind much of this invasive technology. London suffered a terrorist strike on its subways and buses, now we must heighten and arm subway and bus security guards. Fear has always been the tool of those in power. They use the unfolding events of the world, whether staged or un-staged, and drill the fear into our citizens that this will happen to us; we must hand over control and privacy to the government in order to maintain safety and security. Fear mongering is a strong tool in the arsenal of those who wish to disarm and persuade the common citizen.

Most will argue, and perhaps to some extent are correct, that after the death of 3000 civilians that this and many of the upcoming advances in security are required. But to what point are we willing to go? Should we not put our collective “foot” down and halt the perverse invasion of our privacy before we end up living much like a fascist society? Is that not what the United States has been a bastion against since its conception? The beacon of light and hope, where people can come and live without fear of persecution for what they believe or pursue in life, is slowly becoming a cloudy, nebulous society where fear rules absolute.

The death of democracy will come about when people become so complacent with what their government is doing to them, that in effect, the head administration will become a form of God on earth, dictating and deciding every aspect of our lives. Although some may not see it, this is already under way. In the form of the banning of books, the tracking of websites, the interrogations simply because one was curious. No one, unless under the circumstances of intending harm on another or a body of civilians, should need to explain themselves or their purpose. We are slowly becoming the anti-thesis of what America has always represented, a land of intellectual and physical freedom.

Amitai Etzioni, a professor at George Washington University, wrote a rather convincing argument in favor of sacrificing privacy. Perhaps his strongest point is that it is our duty as a moral and just society to sacrifice whatever necessary, including our privacy, for the sake of the public health and wellbeing. I doubt there are many people who will refute this as being false, for the safety of others should always come before the safety of one. The truth is, that ever since the seizing of the US Embassy in Iran in 1979, we have been under attack. Covertly, overtly, the threat of terrorism and an enemy we cannot openly combat has always existed. But we remained ignorant. And now two symbols of our pride have fallen and three thousand innocent people are dead. Now the need for security has finally come to our eyes, necessitated by a tragedy of historic proportions.

This is where the need for balance and compromise must be recognized and met. I do not and can not refute the need for cameras, facial recognition software, and other high tech security methods at crucial areas in our society such as airports, bus and train terminals, and government establishments. But where does that need spill over to include personal online tracking of visitations to certain sites, or in certain pieces of literature. Etzioni argues that in order to protect the safety of the public we must come to accept the sacrifices required on our part. But what if the face behind the cameras and surveillance systems uses the information they acquire for wrong? How can we guarantee our own personal safety? By keeping the security and surveillance where it is needed most, and not allowing it to spill over onto the street corners, the banks, or the local mall.

Nadine Strossen brings up many of the other key ideas that are crucial in order for this “Great Compromise” to be effective. She states, and is supported by the testimony of several police precincts, that cameras in public places have not reduced crime in a significant enough fashion to justify their cost. How then, can Etzioni argue in favor of the surveillance required to track and capture those individuals responsible for tax fraud and the like, when the amount of work, time, and money required for such surveillance of public places may cost just as much, and has been proven to be ineffective. We have more than our privacy at stake in these matters, but the financial aspect of it all is another argument completely.

Strossen, like Etzioni, goes to extremes in her argument, championing the cause for near absolute privacy. This is where, again, a compromise must be made. Surveillance, where it counts, has and will be required in order to prevent another catastrophe. This, in turn, requires the sacrifice of a portion of our privacy. But to say that privacy is more important than the safety of thousands, possibly millions depending on the situation, is a foolish argument. We must, as a society, work with our government to prevent another disaster like 9/11, but we must never become complacent with what the government desires, and must always keep our best interests in mind.

This Great Compromise, much like the one of June 29th, 1787 will require cooperation and understanding from both spectrums. Sacrifice is a key and sacred component of American ideology, and we have always risen to the call. The Constitution only protects our privacy to the point that society determines is reasonable. We musn't let our standards degrade to the point where we no longer value privacy, and the constant invasion of our privacy will one day lead to this occurence. We must keep the cameras, the security, off of the street corners and where it belongs, and in turn, we must make the sacrifice of our privacy where required, and for the correct and just reasons. Taking the arguments to the extremes, as Etzioni and Strossen proceeded to do, will only leave us in a state of perpetual debate and philosophical hypothesizing. We need a compromise, we must accept both the beneficial and damnable aspects of the world we live in.

The danger has always been there, and only now has it decided to rear it's ugly head, but with that comes another danger; the danger of losing all that America, for it's short but vibrant existence, has stood for. We have long proclaimed to be the bastion of freedom and democracy, but should we allow for this perverse invasion to spread uncontrollably, we will become the very opposite. We will become a society of paranoid, fearful people; we will let our suspicions get the best of us, and with that comes prejudice and hatred. The issue of privacy must be stamped out now. A compromise must be reached, lest we dance about with our hands tied allowing ourselves to crumble into a society much like that of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We must never give too much or offer too little - like the Red Scare of the 50's we must always be vigilant - of our government and the “enemy”.


Sources available on request. (This was a personal essay submitted to the school paper, Works Cited page was not required, I'd be more than happy to provide sources should they be needed.)

Edit 2: I'd just like to make it clear that these are my opinions on the matter, and I dont meant to present this as the absolute truth. I'm merely sharing my opinion with the community I oh so love.

[edit on 11/1/06 by Conquistadork]

[edit on 11/1/06 by Conquistadork]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
I think that the people who think privacy must be sacrificed in the name of security should simply move to a nation where there is no privacy before they think about taking away everyone elses freedoms.

And Bush should lead the way.......

Then I take it your in the opinion that the government should not exist, there should be no standard army, police force or other services, since afterall they are only invading YOUR privacy.

Like hell, security.
I got one word for the folks that think this regime is making us safe...

KATRINA

The only reason we feel threatened is because of the leaders who are sworn to "protect."

Ain't no Muslim ever called me a cracker...

So this proves the point. We should divide the country. Send those that want to live with a centralized government that the majority dictates around, they can live on one half. They can live under a microscope and lose their rights in the name of security. The rest can live on the other half with protection from government expansion/abuse, enjoy liberty, and enjoy protection from the wittling away of civil rights.

This is a good idea, when do we start.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Wow brother, lets not preach the revolution just yet.
I want to see us pull out of this, not split.
I definately agree with you. When is enough, enough? I guess I just have a little faith in the Human spirit overcomming this monster we have created, not dividing it...Yet.

A total of 1,001 randomly selected adults were interviewed Jan. 5 to 8 for this survey. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

i like the way they make it sound like they just polled AMERICA.....if AMERIKAN politics wasn't so basterdized, so two faced, so driven by the true 'god'...money..... by those in power.....the security at the expense of freedoms wouldn't be an issue.
the mainstream media is about the last place we should look for the truth...todays mainstream media is a media that pretends that it isn't basis, afraid to ask the hard questions and confront.......

i threw the pollers name into google....link

i wonder if i have annoyed

we all are going to jail..............................

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Wow brother, lets not preach the revolution just yet.
I want to see us pull out of this, not split.
I definately agree with you. When is enough, enough? I guess I just have a little faith in the Human spirit overcomming this monster we have created, not dividing it...Yet.

Actually, I was preaching the exact opposite. We must not stand divided on these petty issues, we must reach a compromise, which was the sole basis of the essay. I asked for both sides of the arguement to come to a real solution through equal and fair negotiations. We can't be demanding complete privacy in the environment we live in today, and llikewise, the other camp can't demand everyone share every aspect of their life in the sake of "National Security".

Neither make any sense, and as such, we must drop the extremes and settle for something we can all live with.

Dork, I was actually replying to ImplementOfWar. I liked your essay. It is very true. This nation was founded on compromise, and we need to remember this now more than ever. I agree completely.
The only other option is revolution and I dont think we really want that.

Oh sorry then Funk

I don't see a revolution in the United States for a long time coming - if ever. It is the complacency of this nation that has got us to where we are now in regards to several controversial issues. What makes anyone think that the American people would actually gather the will and power for a full scale revolution.

As long as we continue to live life concerned about how much your next pair of Abercrombie jeans costs this nation will continue down this path of materialistic obssessions and self-destruction. It frightens me like nothing else ever has.

What issues arent Americans divided on? What issues arent humanity in general divided on? It makes no difference what the issue is, its all about perspective. Humans will always dissagree on things, but must lean to prioritize.

Originally posted by deltaboy
It doesn't surprise me when we have people who criticize the govt for not doing enough to protect the American people and then criticizing them for abusing the power to eavesdrop in the name of national security.

It's not that they're not doing enough, they're not doing the right things!

I criticize the government for not securing our borders.
I criticize the government for not spending the funds to actually secure the safety of the people in public places.
I criticize the government for not setting up ample and effective security at airports.
I criticize the government for giving illegal aliens driver's licenses.
I criticize the government for not protecting our food and water sources.
I criticize the government for not caring about our security!
I criticize the government for abusing their power to illegally eacesdrop on me!

Eavesdropping on my phone calls or email isn't securing our safety!

They should make up their mind. Security or privacy.

ACK!!! I'm not willing to sacrifice either... It's not necessary.

Ok, here is what I think:
The nation should not be divided BUT IT IS!
Civil war/revolution could break out at any second if someone was to look the wrong way and found themselves looking down the barrel of a gun even if it wasnt there (paranoia) but at the same time the person could look over their shoulder and see a knife comming down and freak out and here we go!
The nation is divided on the most STUPIDEST OF THINGS:
Religion
Fanatism
Fascism
Gender
Race
politics
etc.

The govt. has gone to far already but some never realize it untill its to late like in nazi germany. Jews still stuck around thinking things would get better and soon hitler would leave and the world would be back to normal again, WRONG!
Same under Stalin
Same under Lenin
etc. etc. etc.
Now its our turn.
No nation can go on forever and not get marred or mauled by the mark of tyranny, but the question is will we stop it before it goes to far or screw around and let them fester and dig in so when it comes time to make the charge its like trying to run down 1 million expert machinegunners on high ground with a 100,000 mile landmine field in front of them on flat open ground and your unarmed and unarmored and are doing it one person at a time.
To me the following has failed:
Peace (as in protest)- they just jail protesters, beat them up, spray them, or ignore them.
Petitioning: Wont change a thing when they now own the groups you have to go through for impeachment...
Media: even the independents have become hopelessy baised or gung ho govt. in a different way (that or they back off on the subject all together or beat around the bush)
Mainstream media is hopelessly lost to us.
Cutting the nation in two: Civil war (big hint, south tried to secure its own rights and wanted left alone but it didnt happen) so your idea of 2 nations in 1 nation wont work.
etc. etc. etc.

How this whole deal works out is like this:
Beat a dog ruthlessly for years, when its ready to bite you, throw it a bone.
Dog eats bone and is now happy and subdued because it thinks it was only a nightmare, then repeat process for all time.
They are treating the public like a dog, leading it around on a leash from one crisis to the next that they WANT to happen or that happens then they jump on it to get peoples attention off of other things. You and me are lowlier than a maggot to them.
Whenever you think you have won against these people its just a farse, its their chance to go behind you back while you dance and shout "yahooooo" and do something else just as bad if not worse and get away with it because you never knew they did it untill your heads already on the butchers block or already gone.
These people are very willing to wait the next hundred years to get what they want (absoulute power) and care nothing for the cost of life to get it.
How many lives is it going to cost before people realize they are fighting a loosing battle? How many rights must we loose? What cost will this take on us because people refuse to listen and realize we all have the same goal in mind but there is better ways of going around it.
People sit around saying bush only has 2 years left, well what will happen after that? Another bush? Or will we get a bone thrown at us so we shut up and sit down so they can do it again later. Or will bush leave at all?
The beast has had its taste of blood and it likes it, and now its willing to go who knows how far to get more.
How can we solve the problem?
War?
Peace?
Silence?
Leave?
Protest?
what? The founding fathers are rolling in their graves and people are still beating around the bush.

How do you kill a weed? Do you cut the top off? NO! The weed just grows a new head, its like the hydra, cut one off 2 more grow. To kill a weed kill the ROOTS, to kill a hydra cut a head off then sear the wound so it wont grow new ones. But has anyone done this? NO!
People proud themselves on worthless and meaningless "victories" when its just their own demise made more relevant.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"
Thomas Jefferson

There is a common ground for everything, lets found ours before its to late. If its not to late already! The sands of time wait for no one.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's not that they're not doing enough, they're not doing the right things!

I criticize the government for not securing our borders.

You want them to build a wall? Or mine the coasts?

I criticize the government for not spending the funds to actually secure the safety of the people in public places.

How would they do the above?
[qutoe]
I criticize the government for not setting up ample and effective security at airports.

How do they do the above with out breaking the american constitution, civil rights and human rights?

I criticize the government for giving illegal aliens driver's licenses.

How do they know they are illegal?

I criticize the government for not protecting our food and water sources.

What sources?
You want them to place guards around a lake???

I criticize the government for not caring about our security!

As I remeber the US government was based on the idea that the person cared for his own safety to ensure there was no abuse.

I criticize the government for abusing their power to illegally eacesdrop on me!

Whats illegal about it? They can do it legally just as easily.

Eavesdropping on my phone calls or email isn't securing our safety!

Says who? You?

ACK!!! I'm not willing to sacrifice either... It's not necessary.

Then WHAT is necessary?

Originally posted by Conquistadork

As long as we continue to live life concerned about how much your next pair of Abercrombie jeans costs this nation will continue down this path of materialistic obssessions and self-destruction. It frightens me like nothing else ever has.

Well here we are, a good share of the people that are so into there material world they do not give much of anything deep thought and want big brother to protect them so they can continue to shop and watch TV.

Reminds me of a book I read...

Orwell had some kind of forsight eh?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Then WHAT is necessary?

It is not up to me to come up with all the ways that this government should protect us. If I were employed to do so, I would certainly work on finding out the best way to secure the safety of the people instead of telling them what color level they should feel afraid today.

But, since you asked, here are some ideas:

I don’t care what they do to secure the border. Form a task force and find out what would be most effective. Increase Border Patrol. Start enforcing immigration laws. DO SOMETHING about people who are entering this country illegally. It’s illegal. If they catch them, prosecute them instead of just swatting them on the bottom and sending them back home to try again next week, or worse yet, giving them legal driver's licenses!

As far as public security, they could have bomb-sniffing dogs at random public transportation stations. The prisoner dog-training programs could train some of the unwanted dogs in the pounds across the nation to provide a presence in many places. Two birds with one stone.

As far as airports go, there’s got to be a way to keep weapons off of airplanes, or at least to deter people from even thinking about it. Put more armed officers on airplanes. (What are those guys called?) If they threw the money that they’ve wasted on this war at really protecting us, I’m betting we’d see some great improvents in security!

Are you kidding about knowing someone is illegal? If someone is legally in this country, they should have papers that can prove that. I do. It’s called a birth certificate. Bush wants to give them legal driver’s licenses so it will be easier for them to become citizens! It’s freaking illegal for them to even be here! They should have to enter this country like every other immigrant. LEGALLY. THEN get a license.

On the water resources, if it takes guards around the lake, then yes. We could place a hell of a lot of guards for 2 trillion dollars!! I don’t know HOW. I’m not trained in that. But I sure could put a task force together of people who might come up with some good ideas to keep that water safe.

Keeping the illegal immigrants out would be a good start!

You know I don’t have all the answers. But these issues are being completely ignored by the government who is employed specifically to protect our safety:

Declaration

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.