Are you willing to give up some of your privacy for national security?!!?

Question

i would never.

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

Yes I would.  Privacy is not much use if you don't have national security.  I don't think I have really lost very much privacy.  I don't make international phone calls to terrorist.

Answer 3

I thought that was hilarious.

"Americans have to redefine their idea of privacy".

Um, no we don't.

They need to redefine their idea of 'acceptable.'

Answer 4

Absolutely! Nobody has blown up your neighborhood and killed your whole family yet I guess. The government cannot possibly have enough people to listen to millions of calls a day. They use computers and only monitor overseas calls whether incoming or outgoing. They pick certain key words out like bomb, explosives attack, etc. When something is detected the computer will focus directly on that call. If they find out after 10 or 15 seconds that it's just two people talking about world events or what's in the news they'll ignore it. A lot of people don't understand the inner workings of it all. If you're on the phone talking dirty to your girlfriend, the government doesn't care about that and won't even be interested. It's all computerized monitoring and just certain key words and phrases are picked out. Example:  If you never got your oil changed because the gauge in your car always said it was good and you went for a few years and it gunked up more and more and more then one day your motor blows up! You had no reason to worry about it because it never happens and you drive to and from work everyday. It only happens to other people. When you think like that, you let your guard down and by then it's too late.

Answer 5

actually yes I would.  I would much rather be safe.

Answer 6

With 270,000 Americans-including babies, small children and grandmothers on the No Fly List....no, I'm not !

Answer 7

We already have, read the Patriot Act.

Answer 8

Well, it depends. It it were just some strangers (highly qualified) listening on my conversations, i would not mind much. its for the safety of us. if were doing nothing wrong, why would i worry. certain things i would NEVER give up though.

Answer 9

Never... Ben Franklin warned of this, and as he is partly responsible for us having the country we do have, I think his opinion on the matter is important.  "Those who give up privacy for security will soon have neither"... that's a bad paraphrasing, but it's basically what he said.

Answer 10

Specifically what privacy? We have already given up quite a bit!

Answer 11

Privacy is a state of mind. Reality is there is no such thing as "private".   Satellite cams can spot u get into a vehicle and driving from point a to point b, cell conversations haven't been private since before 1996, the avg person is on camera at least 400 times a day, even your online activities are tracked through cookies, flash players, adware, spyware, search engines, etc.

Go to the website for the Irving TX Police Dept and right click on the moving image at the beginning. Check that out. lol

No such thing as private. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Answer 12

Really, no. It's happening, though.

It is also our responsibility to protest this to our lawmakers.

Answer 13

Yes, I have and so have you. and that's the way it is, willing or not.

Answer 14

how much privacy would I have to give up?

Answer 15

No, but the real problem is that I already don't think we have any privacy left to give up.  I also would not give up any other freedoms for national secutity, our liberty is too important.  To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, When people give up their liberties in the name of security, they wind up with neither.

Answer 16

DO YOU ALL KNOW YOU HAVE ALREADY GIVEN UP SOME OF YOU PRIVACY ALREADY, ???????

WELL NOT WILLINGLY BUT THEY'LL GET IT ANYWAY

Answer 17

NO! thats horrible!

Answer 18

NO who would you would have to be dumb to do that!

Answer 19

I'm thinking that different Americans have a different understanding of the word "privacy".

Many people believe that while they are at home, on their own property, no one has the right to visit them, look at them, listen in on them, without being invited. Most people feel also that highly sensitive, personal information such as their medical, financial, and credit records ought to be kept very confidential.

I think pretty much everyone would agree with that.

I think where many people differ is once you get out into the public arena. When an individual is out driving in his/her car, shopping at the mall, attending sporting events, out on the town, or boarding an airplane . . . what should their expectation of privacy be? The same as if they were in their own home? Or does the level of privacy go down as you go out more and more into the public arena?

Many celebrities and also people involved in high-profile court cases are mobbed by the news media everywhere they go. They have no privacy anywhere. The late Princess Diana used to complain that she couldn't go shopping or grab lunch without being hounded by the paparzzi. Ultimately, she died in an automobile accident that came about in part because the driver of the car she was in was attempting to evade the paparazzi.

That was a terrible invasion of her privacy. This woman was being singled out, her life was being made miserable, and she could never enjoy a moment to herself unless she remained a prisoner at home. That's not right.

On the other hand, would this be the level of "invasion of privacy" that most of us would be subjected to if the Department of Homeland Security were to collect data on the passenger lists of airline flights travelling between the United States and "terrorist hot spots" abroad?  I don't know, I have a difficult time seeing the parallels between that and being hounded by a pack of reporters or followed by the police everywhere I go.

To me, when it comes to government surveillance, it makes a big difference if everyone is treated pretty much the same, and if a reasonable case can be made that each particular item of surveillance gathering is truly necessary for the purpose of securing the public safety. It makes a difference if the information is kept in aggregate as much as possible, and if no one individual or group is targeted for further follow up without darned good reason - a reason that has to do with public safety, and no other reason. It makes a difference if the information collected is destroyed after a reasonable amount of time goes by. It makes a difference if proper procedures are followed to ensure that the information is processed in accord with the provisions of the law, and that the people processing the information are themselves closely supervised.

"To provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare", after all is the stated mission of our federal government. The common defense is important; the general welfare is, too. There needs to be a balance between a sense of safety on the one hand and freedom from being watched, on the other.

Answer 20

never!

Answer 21

The ONLY ones that have anything to fear by it is terrorists and traitors.  Do you have something you want to tell us about which you support?

Answer 22

We don;t seem to have a say in the matter anymore, because Bush basically enforced the patriot act.

Answer 23

I do not consider the monitoring of calls that originate and terminate in another country a loss of my privacy.

When the FISA was originally created, calls were not routed through the US as frequently as they are now.

Do you think these calls deserve special protection?

Answer 24

Okay, boys and girls...and just how much "privacy" do you think you really have?  We have been giving up privacy a little bit at a time for a long, long time now.  It sucks but it's just a simple fact of evolutionary life on this planet.  As the wack-jobs that are trying to destroy us get ever more sophisticated, then our surveillance techniques will also evolve:  the result; less privacy.  Not pretty but until we kill every nutjob on the planet (which can't happen) then we'll be forced to give up more and more of our privacy on an ongoing basis.

Answer 25

HELLLLLLLLLLL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Answer 26

no thanx!

Answer 27

I agree with czekoskwigel, however to more accurately paraphrase, he said that those who would give up security for freedom, DESERVE NIETHER!

Answer 28

Absolutely. If you don't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. But then again, I don't live in America!