NSA Privacy Statement - We DO NOT consent.

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
So here we go... Meta data snooping is legal by some twisted and nefarious means. With the NSA data center in Fort Meade coming online soon (if not already) they will be able to suck up every little piece of lint, dust, and speck of information...not only National...but probably Internationally as well.

Personally I believe in the Constitution and particularly the Fourth Amendment at this moment in time. What can we do to protect our privacy? I don't know I wish I did have a solid answer. I can tell you what I have decided to do though.

At the end of each E-mail I send I have decided to utilize the "Signature" line.with the following.





NSA PRIVACY STATEMENT: This electronic communication, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is private and/or confidential. The addressed sender(s) and/or recipient(s) DO NOT consent to the interception, collection, and/or archival of this data. Failure to regard this notice results in a breach of the Fourth Amendment committing unreasonable as well as illegal Search and Seizure of information.



Whether binding or not, effective or not I believe this sends a clear message to the NSA.

Now, what if millions and millions of E-mails carried a similar signature/statement in them?

Anybody here wish to help refine the statement a little? Perhaps this could be a thing of the future...never know.
edit on 16-6-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-6-2013 by miner49r because: Spellcheck/double check




posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Make sure you spell "SEARCH" correctly before sending that..

Look in the last line...



But, it really is a good idea..I like it!
edit on 16-6-2013 by baddmove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Let me be the FIRST to applaud you on this. S&F!
Spell corrections: addressed, Search, Seizure, archival, Amendment
Additions in BOLD:


NSA PRIVACY STATEMENT: This electronic communication, including any(AND ALL)attachments (INCLUDED HEREIN), is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is private and/or confidential. The addressed sender(s) and/or recipient(s) DO NOT consent to the interception, collection, and/or archival of this data. Failure to regard this notice results in a breach of the Fourth Amendment committing unreasonable as well as illegal Search and Seizure of CONSTITUTIONALLY- PROTECTED, PERSONALinformation.
edit on 16-6-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-6-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
It will probably get you as far as it would to tell an angry dog that you do not consent to him biting you.

That's the beauty of it for the NSA, we don't have any way of knowing if they are doing it or not. They could tell us that the program has been shut down.... and keep on doing it. We're screwed.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
For some reason spell check didn't check the quoted text. All better now I hope. Thanks for pointing that out. Does anyone wish to add their own version/rewrite to the mix?
edit on 16-6-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
well here's the official NSA terms of use on their site...

(partial)

Privacy Policy

Privacy Notice

The National Security Agency Web site (NSA.GOV) is provided as a public service by the National Security Agency. NSA is committed to protecting your privacy and will collect no personal information about you unless you choose to provide that information to us.


the entire page is a huge disclaimer chock full of legal mumbo jumbo.

NSA.gov Web Site Terms of Use

Oxymoron with helium in brain



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
How about adding something along the lines of:
"Failure to heed this warning may result in the owner of this communication contacting his/her congressional representative or participating in a class-action lawsuit directed towards the NSA or related entities."



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
How about adding something along the lines of:
"Failure to heed this warning may result in the owner of this communication contacting his/her congressional representative or participating in a class-action lawsuit directed towards the NSA or related entities."


That is a good idea.... consequences of such action



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
edit on 16-6-2013 by sylent6 because: After reviewing my own statement, it was off topic in conjunction to the thread so it was removed by me.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by miner49r
 

Any lawyers on here today? It'd be great to have your input.
P.S. Happy Father's Day, ATS dads.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sylent6


Learn to adapt to changes.





Boiling A Frog:
The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive.

The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by miner49r
 


Dear miner49r,



So here we go... Meta data snooping is legal by some twisted and nefarious means. With the NSA data center in Fort Meade coming online soon (if not already) they will be able to suck up every little piece of lint, dust, and speck of information...not only National...but probably Internationally as well.


It is legal because the military created and owns the internet. It is not just the government that spies on you, business and foreign governments are data mining the internet. People jump up and down when Wikileaks or Anonymous hack the net and then act surprised when the government admits to reading the internet. The owner of Facebook stated publicly that privacy was unimportant and yet, 1 billion people are on Facebook. If you have a Facebook account then everything you use if for is not private, read the terms and conditions of that site or of this site. Nothing you post on ATS is private either. The moderators can read everything including your U2Us.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sylent6
 


I agree with you to some extent. A great deal of us have known/suspected for a very long time this has been going on. Although, it was a "Conspiracy theory" at the time. Now, the cat is out of the bag so to speak and it is a "Conspiracy fact". I don't have anything to hide either....I am an American all the way through right down to my boxer shorts. BUT, ...that doesn't mean since I don't have anything to hide I want my Gov. crawling around in my shorts either.

Change......change can be a good thing or a bad thing. Once you start changing this and that pretty soon the original equation has morphed into something new. Our Founding Fathers had a vision of Freedom and Liberty at the very core of our creation....how much change do suffer before we are something totally different than our Founding Fathers originally intended.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but even the traditional corporate BS companies put on the bottom of their emails are not legally binding.

Besides, even if it were legally binding in any way, the NSA is operating outside of American law. If they can ignore the Constitution of the US, do you really think anyone is gonna even pause at a disclaimer at the bottom of an email?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I do not have a Facebook, MySpace or any other social site. The reason I terminated the accounts is the exact reason we have come to know as fact today. As far as posting here on ATS ...yes I realize and do understand the public nature of it.

The "Signature line" I am purposing and we are looking at is intended for personal email use....from one to another.

I placed my Signature topic in my Signature line here on ATS as only an example and not with the intention of implied privacy.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by miner49r
 


Miner49,

Re: the signature to your email.

The 4th Amendment, as written, states the following.

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized'

We, the people in charge, deem these searches/interceptions/data storage operations to be reasonable, therefore it doesn't apply in these circumstances.

We have decided we don't need a warrant to search, as we're not searching; we're only listening and recording. Nor are we seizing. We are only storing. So the second part also doesn't apply to the current circumstances.

Lots of love,

Those in Charge

edit on 16-6-2013 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


The question of whether this intelligence program is even legal with regards to our Constitution comes into view...but I believe that is a question for the SCOTUS to rightly determine in the future.

As far as legal binding status on an email? .... Yes and No.... right after the 4th Amendment comes the 5th...and majority of us know what that says.

If anything at the least.....should the NSA signature line take hold and gain some traction it would express clear and articulate opinion protected under the 1st Amendment.

To date I know of no law implied or expressed that say you must turn over all your information willingly to the government.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by miner49r
 


Dear miner49r,

I believe in privacy; but, I understand how the internet works. I was one of the beta testers for the original Internet Explorer, I am old.
There is nothing on the internet that is private. The best we can do is understand this and act appropriately. Cell phones are not protected anymore than radio discussions are protected. Theoretically, there are three satellites that control all GPS and they are all owned by the US military, if you use GPS they can know where you are. I am not thrilled by this; but, I recognize it and try and help others to do the same.

I am not a systems person; but, I have a whole IT staff that work for me. Whenever we hire a new systems person, I ask them who owns the internet and not one of them has ever got it right. People seem to assume it just is; but, it just wasn't. The US military created it and controls it and always has. If you want to see deeper go look up ICANN, it is the group that manages domain names, it is allowed to operate under contract with the US military and it is headed by ex-intelligence officers. I have yet to meet a systems person that knew that. We take way too much for granted regarding the internet. We want it to be one thing; but, ignore what it is. The reason other governments are not really freaked out by the announcement of PRISM is because they all use it or something similar.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by miner49r
 


That "freedom and liberty" is changing into "imprisonment and constraint" I hate to my country and its people getting burned and abused by our very own government who doesn't care. Are we going to sit back and let it all be taking away or are we afraid to stand up. It will take the entire nation and its people to stand up against this but dhs says, "no" because if you do.."we will shoot you".

So what are we suppose to do then, ride it out? Only limited time will tell.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
reply to post by miner49r
 


Miner49,

Re: the signature to your email.

The 4th Amendment, as written, states the following.

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized'

We, the people in charge, deem these searches/interceptions/date storage operations to be reasonable, therefore it doesn't apply in these circumstances.

We have decided we don't need a warrant to search, as we're not searching; we're only listening and recording. Nor are we seizing. We are only storing. So the second part also doesn't apply to the current circumstances.

Lots of love,

Those in Charge

edit on 16-6-2013 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



RE: Those in Charge


Probable Cause? .... Please define the bounds and reason and suspicion of Probable Cause concerning the American People as a whole.

In order to "Store" a record one must take possession, attain, gather, seize an item into their possession before they can "Store" it.

Lots of Love,

The American People





top topics
 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join