It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Caution: Maybe Private But Definitely Not Anonymous

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 02:49 PM
As our government blazes a trail to tyranny, here is the latest spin on the theft of our liberties- an attempt to reconstruct our concept of privacy to exclude anonymity.

Below is the text of a speech given October 23, 2007 by Dr. Donald Kerr, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence:

We need to move beyond the construct that equates anonymity with privacy…Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change.

Of course, if we aren't terrorists why would we have anything to hide, right?
As I read it, anonymity doesn't exist anymore and whether or not something is private is a determination to be made by the government.

This is getting to be ridiculous. The gall of these people is mind boggling and the complacency of the public is stupefying.

[edit on 17/11/07 by kosmicjack]

[edit on 17/11/07 by kosmicjack]

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 03:22 PM
The page takes a moment to load but it is a good read. It puts in perspective how, behind the scenes, there is a huge effort to reshape our perception of what our liberties and civil rights should be.

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:13 PM
I dont care if anyone reads my emails or listens to my phone calls as i am doing nothing wrong and whoever is listening will be very bored with what i say. Seems to me the only folks who have something to worry about are the ones who are doing something wrong in the first place.

I mean do i care that government will only allow a speed limit of 70MPH on the insterstates? No because i dont speed. I guess if i constantly drove 100MPH then i'd have something to complain about.

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by princeofpeace

Hmmm... 'doing something wrong'. Define that please? I am sure they are only too eager to define it as whatever suits their agenda. Bless your heart.

You are kidding yourself if you think they are not trying desparately to reconstruct the definition of 'terrorism' as well.

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:51 PM
How nice for them. Privacy is no longer an inalienable right, it is a construct of government policy.

Now, that just defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Isn't privacy a form of liberty? I mean, if public entities like our federal government are trying to dictate what privacy is, then we have already lost it, haven't we?

Aren't public entities like the federal government exactly what we are trying to prevent from infringing on our privacy in the first place? And why does the desire for privacy automatically equal trying to hide some wrong-doing or illegal activity?

Don't you know that the government is prying into our private lives for their own nefarious purposes under the guise of protecting our freedoms and fighting terrorist activity? They want control, not popular freedom. Our freedoms are a threat to the crooks running this current federal government. If they know what you are doing and it isn't illegal, they will make it illegal or tax and regulate it into oblivion in an effort to usurp or co-opt said activity.

Thank God for the Sons of Liberty!

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:01 PM
Technically privacy and anonymity have always stood apart. In the U.S. there is no right of anonymity. There is a right of privacy of course. Where the two cross has been a matter of debate before. Now it seems that the line is being blurred even more. That is, the Government seems to be using ingress into privacy (protected) by the cover of revealing anonymity (not protected). The problem lies in letting them define what is private and what is anonymous action by an individual.

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:12 PM
Very astute insight. Thank you.

Anonymity is not revealing your identity. Privacy is not revealing what you are doing to the prying eyes of others.

They can find out who most of us are easily enough these days. What they really want to control is what we are doing. Hence the focus on eroding privacy rights.

new topics


log in