Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Value of Government Surveillance of Citizens
Campaign for Liberty ^ | 2010-01-28 | Jacob Hornberger

Posted on 01/31/2010 11:55:26 PM PST by rabscuttle385

It's amusing to watch U.S. officials protest the Chinese government's surveillance of its own citizens. After all, isn't it the U.S. government that secretly and illegally conspired with private telecom companies to record telephone conversations of private American citizens? And isn't it the U.S. government that secured both civil and criminal immunity for the telecoms' decision to sell out the privacy of their customers to the feds?

One of the aspects of the federal government's telecom surveillance scheme that is rarely mentioned by the mainstream press goes to the heart of why government surveillance of its citizens is so valuable -- to provide a means to keep the citizenry subdued and subservient through an subtle form of blackmail.

Prior to the NSA-telecom scandal, Americans had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to their telephone conversations. They would feel free to talk about things with friends and relatives that they would never expect the authorities or the public to find out.

Some of the things discussed might be illegal in nature but other things might just be things that would be embarrassing if the public were to find out.

For example, conversations about the use or purchase of illicit drugs. Or married people having adulterous affairs. Or business people engaged in unethical conduct at work. Or hurtful gossip about friends and acquaintances.

The range of private communications that people would not want to be made public are endless -- conversations that most everyone figured were private at the time they were taking place.

But little did everyone know, that wasn't necessarily the case. As it turns out, the U.S. government, operating through the NSA in cooperation with U.S. telecoms, was secretly recording countless telephone conversations of countless Americans for an extended period of time. The recordings of those conversations are now in the permanent databases of the NSA and possibly other government agencies.

What better way to keep an entire populace subdued, subservient, and obedient? People who are now tempted to, say, join a Tea Party protest movement now have to factor in their deliberations the fact that the government potentially has some very incriminating or embarrassing information that it could use against them in retaliation.

How could the government use that type of information against someone? Simple -- by simply leaking it to a favored journalist, who proceeds to share the gossip with others until it begins to percolate within society, in much the same way that U.S. officials ensured that people found out that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

Would U.S. officials do something that dastardly?

Well, sure they would. After all, don't forget that when Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio refused to go along with the illegal telecom surveillance scheme, the feds retaliated with an insider-trading prosecution against him. Why wouldn't they retaliate against someone who wasn't playing ball by simply leaking embarrassing information about him?

Let's not forget what the feds did to Martin Luther King when he began shaking up the establishment. They secretly recorded his telephone conversations and then attempted to blackmail him into ceasing his civil-rights activities by threatening to release information about extramarital affairs that he was purportedly having.

Why did they believe that King was having such affairs? Their secret recordings of his telephone conversations provided them that information.

To his credit, King refused to succumb to the federal blackmail. But he paid a big price for it. The feds leaked the evidence they had acquired in their secret surveillance to some favored journalist stooges who then made the information public.

Would Americans who have had their private telephone conversations secretly and illegally recorded by the NSA respond like King did? Some would. But by the same token, there undoubtedly is a certain number of Americans who would say, "Not me. Count me out. I'm keeping my head down. I can't afford to have my telephone conversations disclosed to my family, my company, or the public."

Copyright © 2010 Future of Freedom Foundation


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; policestate; surveillance

1 posted on 01/31/2010 11:55:26 PM PST by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bamahead; djsherin; Bokababe; mysterio; Captain Kirk; BGHater
What better way to keep an entire populace subdued, subservient, and obedient? People who are now tempted to, say, join a Tea Party protest movement now have to factor in their deliberations the fact that the government potentially has some very incriminating or embarrassing information that it could use against them in retaliation.

*Ping!*

2 posted on 01/31/2010 11:55:54 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The Bummer admin is, I think, too feckless to do very much about the tea parties. They can’t even get their own story straight for a week, much less organize the goon squads.


3 posted on 02/01/2010 12:03:26 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

CITIZEN surveillance of Government is KEY!


4 posted on 02/01/2010 12:12:30 AM PST by PizzaDriver ( on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PizzaDriver

The give-a-damn factor in politics can’t be overstated. My favorite factoid: 40% of Americans eligible to vote cast no ballot for any presidential candidate in 2008.


5 posted on 02/01/2010 12:15:32 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

BTTT


6 posted on 02/01/2010 12:34:19 AM PST by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Luckily much of that 40% are “grass-hoppers” rather than “ants”!


7 posted on 02/01/2010 12:41:09 AM PST by PizzaDriver ( on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PizzaDriver

Or unluckily depending on how you look at it (it’s a hole card for the likes of ACORN).


8 posted on 02/01/2010 12:45:00 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

This guy makes a *lot* of accusations. Most of them I would only expect to hear from the loony left.

1. …isn’t it the U.S. government that secretly and illegally conspired with private telecom companies to record telephone conversations of private American citizens?

Illegally? Really? Reminds me of the people who want Bush and Cheney charged with war crimes..

2. And isn’t it the U.S. government that secured both civil and criminal immunity for the telecoms’ decision to sell out the privacy of their customers to the feds?

Is there something wrong with that?

3. Some of the things discussed might be illegal in nature but other things might just be things that would be embarrassing if the public were to find out. For example, conversations about the use or purchase of illicit drugs. Or married people having adulterous affairs. Or business people engaged in unethical conduct at work. Or hurtful gossip about friends and acquaintances.

Should people really have a right to privacy when they’re talking about things like that?

4. …the U.S. government, operating through the NSA in cooperation with U.S. telecoms, was secretly recording countless telephone conversations of countless Americans for an extended period of time.

Was that the program that keyed in on certain terms? The one that collected so much raw data that there was no way they could go through even a substantial fraction of it?

5. The recordings of those conversations are now in the permanent databases of the NSA and possibly other government agencies.

He knows that how?

6. People who are now tempted to, say, join a Tea Party protest movement now have to factor in their deliberations the fact that the government potentially has some very incriminating or embarrassing information that it could use against them in retaliation.

I’d bet that the vast majority of people tempted to join a “Tea Party protest movement” don’t have any such concerns.

7. …in much the same way that U.S. officials ensured that people found out that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

Wait a minute, that was already public knowledge, wasn’t it? She was listed in several places as Joe Wilson’s wife, and he had a habit of telling people that his wife worked for the CIA. The only reason this issue is of interest to anyone was that it shone a light on the scurrilous trick she and her husband had played on Bush, America, and mankind. Naturally, the dims want to cover it up.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/serious_questions_for_henry_wa.html

8. …when Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio refused to go along with the illegal telecom surveillance scheme, the feds retaliated with an insider-trading prosecution against him.

Really? None of those 52 counts had any merit? Is there any credible corroboration of this, or are we looking at a desperate man saying anything to stay out of jail?

9. They secretly recorded (Martin Luther King’s) telephone conversations and then attempted to blackmail him into ceasing his civil-rights activities by threatening to release information about extramarital affairs that he was (undoubtedly) having.

So, I guess you’re just not allowed to talk any more about all the communists that King had around him, advising him. Couldn’t be that the FBI were worried about that, could it? Nope, no way. It was just racism, pure and simple, right?

10. The feds leaked the evidence they had acquired in their secret surveillance to some favored journalist stooges who then made the information public.

Journalist stooges? The way this guy eschews prejudicial language is impressive. The pseudo-journalist stooges we have these days wouldn’t publish anything bad about a fellow leftist if you put a gun to their heads. Of course, letting King’s worshippers know just what kind of a man they followed was a scurrilous, rascally thing to do. Even if it was true, it shouldn’t have been, and they had an obligation to pretend it wasn’t. Right?

“I can’t afford to have my telephone conversations disclosed to my family, my company, or the public.”

What in the world have such people been up to? And why should I be sympathetic to their desire to cover it up?


9 posted on 02/01/2010 3:10:37 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The play can be executed by both teams on the field, the Feds can observe and we can deceive, put the information machine into overload, there are many ways to do this, the favorite one of mine is to peruse the magazine stand and gather dozens of subscription forms, pick out a favorite address across America and start subscriptions to yourself.

Its all being tracked.


10 posted on 02/01/2010 3:15:20 AM PST by Eye of Unk (Phobos, kerdos, and doxa, said the Time Traveler. “Fear, self-interest, and honor.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsc

I agree with you. Also...

From the article:

***It’s amusing to watch U.S. officials protest the Chinese government’s surveillance of its own citizens. After all, isn’t it the U.S. government that secretly and illegally conspired with private telecom companies to record telephone conversations of private American citizens?***

If this is true, it sure is a surprise to me. I suspect it’s a reference to Bush’s approval of Homeland Security auditing only phone calls from suspected terrorists overseas to this country, but NOT to phone calls which originate in this country.

In short, it appears to be some clever writing by someone who wants the terrorists to succeed in destroying this country.

Comments?


11 posted on 02/01/2010 4:28:08 AM PST by kitkat (Obama hates us. Well, maybe a LOT of Kenyans do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson