It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

NSA Privacy Statement - We DO NOT consent.

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by miner49r

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


Dear Miner,

We don't need probable cause as we've said we don't need warrants as we're not seizing, the information is being freely transmitted. Nothing is being seized, or gathered. Your information is merely being duplicated and stored. Nothing is being taken from you.

Nothing is seized.

However, if you wish a probable cause, we're quite happy to play the 'War on Terror(TM)' card again.

Best wishes to the wife and kids, don't forget she texted you to pick up some milk on the way home.

Lots of love,

TPTB




posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Have you thought about a one-time use COPYRIGHT angle for emails?
Imagine the contents of a personal email as an intellectual property, which when copied and transmitted to an NSA storage facility, represents an illegal infringement.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Let us be concise and with clear intention of the NSA Privacy Statement.

Wile it may or may not be binding, should the concept spread, perhaps go viral it would send a message to those in charge.

This is intended to be a clear message and non-violent statement to current affairs and how they are being conducted.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


Dear TPTB,

As you have clearly read, I do not consent to my personal communication being archived or "stored" in any fashion or means.

Thank you for the well wishes. I have been divorced for 20 years, the kids are grown, and I am lactose intolerant.

Best wishes,

The People



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
NSA PRIVACY STATEMENT:?

Just go with....PRIVACY STATEMENT



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 



Could go with just a simple and generic term, ...but who reads those things? Now that you bring it up NSA could be substituted for FEDERAL.... that would include all the other mysterious alphabet agencies as well.
edit on 16-6-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
All materials contained in this email represent personal intellectual property, are protected by copyright laws, and may not be reproduced, republished, distributed, transmitted, displayed, broadcast, stored or otherwise exploited in any manner without the express prior written permission of the owner.
edit on 16-6-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by miner49r
reply to post by khimbar
 


Dear TPTB,

As you have clearly read, I do not consent to my personal communication being archived or "stored" in any fashion or means.

Thank you for the well wishes. I have been divorced for 20 years, the kids are grown, and I am lactose intolerant.

Best wishes,

The People


Dear Miner,

As the 4th Amendment stands, consent is neither needed nor wanted.

Besides, we know you know we don't care about consent; we know this from all your recent internet searches on this subject. And stay off that dodgy conspiracy forum. Not ATS. The other one.

Love and snuggles.

TPTB

PS Your eldest has just dialled your number to ring home.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
All materials contained in this email represent personal intellectual property, are protected by copyright laws, and may not be reproduced, republished, distributed, transmitted, displayed, broadcast, stored or otherwise exploited in any manner without the express prior written permission of the owner.
edit on 16-6-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)


I wonder if generalized communication could be considered "Intellectual Property". It would be really great to hear from an attorney other legalise individual here.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


May I refer to you to United States v. Warshak

Yeah yeah yeah I get your point. What are you trying to do? Scare the crap out others here? Could it be that your really some super secret squirrel on the hunt?

Look... we as Americans need to speak out against that which is plainly wrong. Had our Forefathers quivered in their log cabins and only whispered among themselves we would not be where we are today!!

There are many outspoken individuals here and elsewhere. The question is.... are they armchair proponents for the cause or willing to take a little personal risk to speak out for freedom and privacy.

Somehow I just can't see our Forefathers saying "I don't know dude...better not say that too loudly. The British may hear you."


edit on 16-6-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Here's a better privacy statement:


-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----


The problem is, it requires the person on the other end to care as much about privacy as you do. But that's always a privacy problem.
edit on 16-6-2013 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
True, ...encryption is an option. But, is complicated and requires the receiver(s) to employ the same methods.

This raises a couple of questions though.

First why should one have to employ encryption methods to keep their government out of their conversations. What kind of society, definition of liberty, and reasonable expectation to privacy does this demonstrate?

Secondly, So you and your buddies are passing emails about who knows (and who cares really) what all being encrypted. I would think that would set off some alarms bells as "Patterns". So really encryption would probably bring just as much attention as non-encrypted.

Besides, whatever the average individual can do, I am sure they can do twice as fast and just as good.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by miner49r
So here we go... Meta data snooping is legal by some twisted and nefarious means.


It's legal by the usual means. Nothing twisted and nefarious about it.


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


Good luck with that. It doesn't mean a damn thing and will be completely ignored.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Just to be clear.....

I never said this was legally binding.
The signature details are not meant to "keep out" or barr prying eyes.



Contrary to your opinion, it does mean something. It is a clear statement that I do not condone the collection of data or information contrary to the 4th Amendment by my Government.

I invite others who feel the same join me.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by miner49r
True, ...encryption is an option. But, is complicated and requires the receiver(s) to employ the same methods.

This raises a couple of questions though.

First why should one have to employ encryption methods to keep their government out of their conversations.

Why should one have to employ envelopes to keep their government out of their mail? Why not just send everything on postcards, and trust the government not to read them? When Zimmermann made that argument in 1991, it was because he thought it was common sense that everybody used envelopes, so everybody should use encryption. I think it's still common sense, but I guess there are still some postcard people.

Most people consider it common sense to use encryption on their wireless access points, or when logging in to their bank. Few take the same care with their emails and instant messages. I guess people thought the Fourth Amendment protected the contents of their communications. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. But consider: you don't live in a world where only the government wants to read your mail. You live in a world where everybody wants to read your mail. If you use a commercial email provider, they want to read it so they can sell you things. Your thieving neighbor wants to read it so he knows when you will be away from home. Your jealous ex wants to find out where your new SO he or she can pay them a visit. I want to read it because there might be something juicy I can post on my spy blog. The foreign agents working at US ISPs want to read your mail so they can find something useful to sell, or blackmail you with. And foreign SIGINT technical operations are intercepting everything over satellite, and a lot of microwave and wire traffic.

There are a lot of people with access to your communications. The NSA is probably the most benign, as their only goal is intelligence production. No amount of restrictions on the US government will secure you against the others, who actually want to exploit you, hurt you, or rob you. Either you care about privacy, or you don't. You can't care about privacy vis-a-vis the NSA but not care about privacy vis-a-vis everybody else.


Secondly, So you and your buddies are passing emails about who knows (and who cares really) what all being encrypted. I would think that would set off some alarms bells as "Patterns". So really encryption would probably bring just as much attention as non-encrypted.

Even if it does, your email is encrypted, and no amount of cryptological attention will let them read it. You force the attacker to commit to expensive black bag jobs if they want to read your message traffic.


Besides, whatever the average individual can do, I am sure they can do twice as fast and just as good.

Fine. Let them break PGP twice as fast and just as good as the average individual.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 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.

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


A similar statement is at the bottom of every email I receive from attorneys. Think I'll start using it.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


I must say your reasoning is completely sound. Although I have never used encryption I can see the merits in it.

The only problem is, I am probably the only one on my contacts list that would (could) set up encryption. While it is not extremely difficult, it does take a little savvy to setup. I can pretty well bet if I asked everyone on my contacts list to set up encryption they would probably say "huh?" To bad encryption is not more main stream, widely used and easier to set up.

With that said I think I will encrypt my HDD just for kicks. Thanks for the info!



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Awesome Bilk

Pass it on



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join