Letters to the Editor
perris
Published Letters: 6
-
The Way the Subject MUST BE discussed
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The real reasons there isn't as much public alarm over the "wireless wiretap" program is not as multi faceted as people think.
People need to discuss this program in the proper terms, they need to use the language that "puts a face" on what is happening. Individuals need to put themselves in a position where the violations can happen to themselves.
This debate needs to be discussed in the following terms:
"we need to make sure nobody is stealing our information"
"I have to be sure people haven't been taking my business secrets or gaining the information that's important for me to be competitive"
"I need to make certain there aren't deviants listening to the conversations I have with my wife and children"
"I need to make sure criminals don't have any access to information that will harm my wife and children"
"why does the administration think they can steal my information"
"if officials think they can't show a reason to steal my information it's obvious the information they want is for personal purposes and NOT for national security"
THAT is the way this subject MUST be discussed, to say things like "warrant less wiretap" doesn't mean a lot, to say things like "it violates my constitutional rights" is too obscure and most people WON'T associate the statement with the obvious ramifications.
In other words, the discussion needs to be debated in practical terms rather then legal or constitutional language.
Perris
-
the real reason we need privacy protection
[Read the article: Anatomy and significance of Monday's FISA victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]retro active immunity gives these corporations the right to keep property they have stolen from me.
the MAIN reason we need privacy is NOT to hide information we are most embarrassed, we need privacy to hide information WE ARE MOST PROUD
I need to protect my business contacts, my sources, I need to protect what I have paid for product, what I am willing to pay, what I will bid, what others have bid for my goods
I need to protect my manuscripts, if I am developing a carburetor that will get 150 miles to the gallon, I want to be able to market that for full value and I DON’T want to compete with people who have STOLEN my information.
these corporations have stolen information and they have allowed officials to steal information
I NEED TO BE COMPENSATED for the the information that has been taken from me
IF a company has acted in good faith, in the interest of national security, then they don’t need immunity
and why on earth would they need “immunity” if they haven’t stolen from us?
I don’t want depraved “officials” making believe they can gather my property and I don’t want private corporations gathering my property with impunity
we MUST protect our privacy so we can protect our property
I ALSO don’t want depraved individuals use the cover of government to spy on my wife, I don’t want them using the cover of government to listen in on my daughters private conversations or looking up her dress
and I DON’T want depraved individuals using the cover of government to see ANYTHING that’s the private information of my son, my daughter, my wife, myself.
RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY GIVES CORPORATIONS LICENSE TO KEEP MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
and I want to MAKE SURE they did NOT steal from me, and IF THEY DID THEY NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BAR OF JUSTICE
-
the real reasons there cannot be retroactive immunity
[Read the article: More disruptions to the Cheney/Rockefeller plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's a point I think even Glen is missing when we discuss or write about "retro active immunity"
If allowed, this "retro active immunity" those companies and officers of the company and even the lowest of laborers would have access to our property, the would have been allowed to take information they are not entitled, they will be given the cover of this law to keep the property they took and claim it as theirs.
And the courts will be forced to decide on their behalf!
Those stolen from will not be allowed redress when our property is discovered as stolen, nor will we be allowed discovery to find the extent of the theft, the level of damage.
for instance;
When we find our manuscript plagiarized, though we can prove such with no doubt, the telecom will be allowed to profit from that manuscript regardless that it was stolen.
If I have a new design that will give an auto 100 mpg and the telecoms has acquired that design through their wiretapping, they can sell my design and I will not be allowed redress.
If there is someone depraved enough to use the information they have to follow my daughter where she will be, I will not be able to find out who committed the crime and how they found the information they used to do whatever they did to my daughter
This is far more important then simply protecting constitutional freedom, there are real tangible issues.
We must be allowed redress when we find we have been harmed, when we find crimes have been committed against us, those criminals cannot have refuge under cover of making believe it was for national security
-
the hacking of these emails might NOT be illegal
[Read the article: What does Sarah Palin have to hide in her Yahoo e-mails?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some adolescent criminal (in mentality if not age) yesterday hacked into a Yahoo account used by Sarah Palin for both personal and business email, and various sites
glen, I love your work but you miss a very important point and it is huge;
why is it some "adolescent criminal", why isn't it someone who legally did this from the nsa and released the information?
this is eminently possible since no warrant is needed, how on earth can you say this is a criminal?
in addition, suppose this was done from the nsa but without authorization from that organization?
it is STILL not illegal, anyone from that organization can gather information with no over site.
that is the elephant in the room, we need to point out that this could very well be legal activity since no warrant is required from the nsa