the fact you have "nothing to hide" does not for one second make it tolerable that your text messages or emails or anything else are being scrutinized by third parties. would be okay if all the mail you had delivered to your home was torn open and read? i sure as hell wouldnt.
i dont have a damn thing to hide either but guess what my private buisness is not subject to public viewing. my civil rights are not a buffet table to picked and chosen from as somone else sees fit regardless if im innocent and have nothing to hide.
The whole Petraeus event started when she took some emails to the FBI and they started an investigation. [link] They didn't just randomly start reading emails from everybody they could find looking for somebody doing something skeezy.
Yeah, I wish I could care. I wish I could be outraged at the idea that a third party may be reading my stuff. But I'm not. I don't care. I have never cared, and never will care.
Just like I don't care that shopping centers are video taping me shop and my cell phone could be tapped and all that other crap.
What are they possibly going to find out in my case? Feeding instructions for my animals? Oh dear.
So what if I'm sending emails about toxic air or not liking this or that politician- again-why would they care? Unless you're high-powered, in which case you'd do well to keep your private communications actually private- person to person. Because ANYTHING can be monitored, not just email.
And communications don't get monitored unless they think you're up to something, anyway, do you know how expensive it would be to pay people to sit around and read every email ever sent?
Hell, Google TELLS you your emails are going to be read when you sign up- that's how they target the adds. Once you click 'Ok' you don't get to complain about that anymore.
And for that matter, I'd bet that every user agreement for every website could include 'your communication may be monitored' and people would STILL say 'ok' because they don't pay enough attention to read the stuff, anyway.
Since the second I started using the internet- and this was back in the day when you had to physically plug your computer into the phone line and dial the ISP yourself, and all two dozen web pages took at least three minutes to load- I always assumed I wasn't getting full privacy.
Yeah. It's in the terms and conditions. Primarily to target adds. It scans for keywords. Not just Google, either, Yahoo and other free email services and stuff do it, too. And it's right there in the TOS. The reason people don't know isn't because the company is hiding it, it's because they don't read before they click 'I agree'.
I guess I don’t care because I have nothing to hide. In the event that something is used against me, perhaps my perspective will change. But if I am plotting to blow up a bank and the FBI figures it out because they were monitoring my email, then chances are people will consider their surveillance justified.
My theory is, they’re not going to stop doing it, just because people don’t like it. I can’t stop them. So getting upset about it is pointless.
And the government abusing their authority is not new. Nor is the concept of them being all up in people’s business.
Well since I graduated high school 20 years ago, that’s not really a fair conclusion.
It is not defeatism. It is called having lived long enough to know which battles are worth fighting and which are likely to reap no rewards and only deplete energy. There is nothing admirable about being a rebel without a clue. Google Lenny Bruce for some clarification on the concept.
If I saw an obvious path of resistance against this injustice, which is at this point mere speculation, I would take it. If there was something I could vote on or a petition to sign (that would probably go ignored) I might consider it. But how would I go about fighting it? And why would I go out of my way to draw attention to myself when I haven’t done anything wrong and haven’t had my personal information used against me?
Right now I’m responsible for me and my children. That alone is enough of a responsibility. I would hardly equate to not getting up in arms about a perceived possible violation of my privacy to not caring about my fellow man. What’s next, I’m a Nazi?
Hey, you said it, not me. But if that's how you feel, maybe you should do something about it?
The thing is, without privacy and anonymity, there's no real freedom of speech. And freedom of speech/expression is sort of the basis for all other human rights. Without freedom of speech, you can't organize political opposition for things you disagree with.
Let's say, one of your children turns out to be gay, and your country/state decides homosexuality to be a crime that's punishable by death. Then let's say you'd want to organize support for a political movement to change the legislation. But in an oppressive state that doesn't allow free expression, this would be really hard to do.
Or let's say, some big corporation sets up a factory in your home town and dumps it full of toxic waste, putting your children at risk of leukemia or something. You'd probably want to raise awareness to it, create petitions to your government, try to raise funds for a class action suit or something else. Without freedom of speech it'd be really hard to do.
Sure, things might be all fine for you and your children personally, right now. But you never know what happens in the future.
" Petraeus reportedly used draft e-mails to converse with mistress
Petraeus set up a private account under a pseudonym and composed email messages but never sent them. Instead, they were saved in draft. His lover, Paula Broadwell, would log in under the same account, read the email and reply, all without sending anything. The traffic would not be sent across the networks through Google’s data centers, making it nigh on impossible for the National Security Agency or any other electronic signals eavesdropping agency (such as Britain’s elusive GCHQ) to ‘read’ the traffic while it is in transit.
Saving an email as a draft almost entirely eliminates network traffic, making it nigh on impossible for intelligence agencies to ‘traffic sniff.’
And yes, terrorists and pedophiles have been known to use this ‘trick’, but also sophisticated criminals also use this technique. It eliminates a network trail to a greater or lesser extent, and makes it more difficult to trace.
But surely IP addresses are logged and noted? When emails are sent and received, yes. But the emails were saved in draft and therefore were not sent. However, Google may still have a record of the IP addresses of those who logged into the account.
However, most Internet or broadband providers offer dynamic IP addresses that change over time, and an IP address does not always point to the same computer, let alone the same region or state every time it is assigned to a user. Even then, recent U.S. court cases have found that IP addresses do not specifically point to a computer, meaning even if the authorities were sure that it was Petraeus, for instance — though IP addresses very rarely give the exact house number and street address — it would not stick in court.
As is often the case, human error can land someone in the legal spotlight. 37-year-old Florida resident Jill Kelley, a family friend to the Petraeus’, allegedly received emails from an anonymous account warning Kelley to stay away from the CIA chief.
But when Broadwell sent these messages, it left behind little fragments of data attached to the email — every email you send has this data attached — which first led the FBI on a path that led up to the very door of Petraeus’ office door in Langley, Virginia.