Can You Trust the President, Congress or the Courts to Protect Your Privacy Rights?

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com ^ | November 27, 2012 | John Whitehead

[NKP_Vet]

“The game is rigged, the network is bugged, the government talks double-speak, the courts are complicit and there’s nothing you can do about it.”—David Kravets, reporting for Wired

Nothing you write, say, text, tweet or share via phone or computer is private anymore. This is the reality of the internet-dependent, plugged-in life of most Americans today.

A process which started shortly after 9/11 with programs like National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping and Total Information Awareness has grown into a full-fledged network of warrantless surveillance, electronic tracking and data mining, thanks to federal agents having been granted carte blanche access to the vast majority of electronic communications in America. Their methods generally run counter to the Constitution, but no federal agency, court or legislature has stepped up to oppose this rapid erosion of our privacy, and there is no way of opting out of this system.

Consequently, over the course of the past 12 years, Congress, the courts, and the president (both George W. Bush and Barack Obama) have managed to completely erode privacy in America. Complicating matters further is the fact that technology is moving so rapidly that we often find ourselves making decisions (or subjected to decisions) whose consequences we can scarcely comprehend.

[NKP_Vet]

Put me in squarely in camp 2.

[Lionheartusa1]

,,,,, what’s this a trick question ???

[BenLurkin]

http://www.moviesoundclips.net/download.php?id=988&ft=wav

[Amendment10]

Unfortunately, privacy is not an express, constitutionally protected right. While I think that privacy should be constitutionally protected to some extent, it doesn't surprise me that the constitutionally-ignorant states have never amended the badly negelected Constitution to expressly protect privacy.

In fact, note that activist justices first put on their "magic glasses" to subjectively find in the Constitution the so-called right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, and then based the likewise constitutionally nonexistent right to have an abortion on the fictitious constitutional right to privacy when they decided Roe v. Wade.

[Gator113]

No, no and no.

[clamper1797]

No .... the present government is at war with 1/2 of it’s citizens. Sides and scapegoats are being chosen as we speak. Expect and prepare for the firearms/food confiscations, dissident round-ups, and the inevitable shooting to begin in the VERY near future.