This article is a ridicules slap to the face. I have no social media but to
keep up with business and provide one must have email and use a cell phone. I
would not have them if I wasn't a business owner. This government needs to
follow the laws of the land.
Here's a question that no NSA sympathizer has been able to give me an
answer to. Were it not for Edward Snowden, how would we know about the
government's collection of metadata? Every time intelligence officials
testified before Congress they denied the existence of such a program. In other
words, it took a man breaking the law to find out the NSA was doing things one
judge has already ruled unconstitutional. How can a government be "of the
people" when a person has t break the law for the rest of us to know that
their government is breaking the law?As far as the comparison
between NSA spying and social media use, they're two different issues.
There's a big difference between the NSA tracking (without my consent) who
I made a phone call to and for how long, and me knowingly posting a photo of the
hot dog I had for lunch on Facebook.
Mr. Samuelson completely missed the point? The 4th Amendment GUARANTEES our
right to privacy FROM government spying. It is that simple. Our own government
does not support the Constitution. If our own government does not support the
Constitution, then what becomes of our other guaranteed rights? What becomes of
all of our unguaranteed rights? We are a nation where the people,
not the government, make the rules. We limit the power, the authority, the
scope of government. The government does not limit our power, our authority or
our scope. ALL rights EXCEPT those that we have specifically listed
(enumerated) are retained by the people. NO rights, except those that we have
specifically listed (enumerated) can be limited by government. In this case,
the government not only has ignored our right to privacy (because we have not
listed a duty to be spied upon as one assigned to the government) but it has
absolutely violated the Constitution by collecting private data without a signed
court order from a judge based on probable cause as ABSOLUTELY required by the
4th Amendment.Mr. Samuelson, as a member of the 4th Estate, you
totally blew off your responsibility.
When the IRS and other government agencies used information about who people
supported politically to target them, clearly that is a problem. That really
happened, although key people plead the 5th and the justice department and
Congress refused to do anything about it. I feel like my right to free speech is
threatened by this spying. If I get audited, how do I know it's not because
government officials don't like what I say on this site? I don't
consider political opposition to the current regime to be wrong, but the regime
does, therefore I am a potential target of the NSA.
I find it hillarious and hypocritical that Obama campaigned on repealing the
Patriot Act, NSA spying, and the middle east power grabs. Now he defends all 3
and has expanded all 3. Bush never left, as far as I'm concerned, he's
still in office wearing Obamas face.
I know this isn't the popular belief, but actually what Samuelson reports
here is pretty much accurate. Mike Richards.... do a little more
studying.... read up on reasonable right to privacy. Anything done in public =
you have no reasonable right to privacy there. When you go online, you are
entering a public space. I understand most don't understand that. But the
internet is just like main street. What you do on the internet, the sites you
visit, what you write in what you think are private emails... are all done in a
public domain. What you can reasonably expect to be private is rather limited
outside of the boundries of your own property. I thought I had seen
somewhere that you were a photographer. As such, I would sure think you would
understand the concept as the same principles applies to street photography.
Your explicit right to privacy is rather narrow.