Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Big Brother Democracy: How Free Speech and Surveillance Are Now Intertwined

By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted August 28, 2007.


Political protesters are now being videotaped under the guise of ensuring their legal right to be seen and heard. What happens when surveillance is billed as the new participatory democracy?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Naomi Klein

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Recently, as protesters gathered outside the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec, to confront US President George W. Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Associated Press reported this surreal detail: "Leaders were not able to see the protesters in person, but they could watch the protesters on TV monitors inside the hotel ... Cameramen hired to ensure that demonstrators would be able to pass along their messages to the three leaders sat idly in a tent full of audio and video equipment ... A sign on the outside of the tent said, 'Our cameras are here today providing your right to be seen and heard. Please let us help you get your message out. Thank You.'"

Yes, it's true: Like contestants on a reality TV show, protesters at the SPP were invited to vent into video cameras, their rants to be beamed to protest-trons inside the summit enclave. It was security state as infotainment -- Big Brother meets, well, Big Brother.

The spokesperson for Prime Minister Harper explained that although protesters were herded into empty fields, the video-link meant that their right to political speech was protected. "Under the law, they need to be seen and heard, and they will be."

It is an argument with sweeping implications. If videotaping activists meets the legal requirement that dissenting citizens have the right to be seen and heard, what else might fit the bill?

How about all the other security cameras that patrolled the summit -- the ones filming demonstrators as they got on and off buses and peacefully walked down the street? What about the cellphone calls that were intercepted, the meetings that were infiltrated, the e-mails that were read? According to the new rules set out in Montebello, all of these actions may soon be recast not as infringements on civil liberties but the opposite: proof of our leaders' commitment to direct, unmediated consultation.

Elections are a crude tool for taking the public temperature -- these methods allow constant, exact monitoring of our beliefs. Think of surveillance as the new participatory democracy; of wiretapping as the political equivalent of Total Request Live.

Protesters in Montebello complained that while they were locked out, CEOs from about thirty of the largest corporations in North America -- from Wal-Mart to Chevron -- were part of the official summit.

But perhaps they had it backward: The CEOs had only an hour and fifteen minutes of face time with the leaders. The activists were being "seen and heard" around the clock. So perhaps instead of shouting about police state tactics, they should have said, "Thank you for listening." (And reading, and watching, and photographing, and data-mining.)

The Montebello "seen and heard" rule also casts the target of the protests in a new light. The SPP is described in the leaders' final statement as an "ambitious" plan to "keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade." In other words, a merger of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the homeland security complex -- NAFTA with spy planes.

The model dates back to September 11, when the US Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, pronounced that in the new era, "security will trump trade." But there was an out clause: The trade on which Canada's and Mexico's economies depend could continue uninterrupted, as long as those governments were willing to welcome the tentacles of the US "war on terror." Canadian and Mexican business leaders leapt to surrender, aggressively pushing their governments to give in to US demands for "integrated" security in order to keep the goods and tourists flowing.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: video, surveillance

Naomi Klein is the author of "No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies" and "Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate." You can read more at NaomiKlein.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Destroying" America...
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Aug 28, 2007 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As many readers here are quite aware - the acceptance of such a surveillance state has been driven by fear; fear of terrorists coming to take your freedoms.

But, "The" terrorists will never, ever destroy America. They'll never, ever end our way of life in America. They can't.

This will come from within - from our own fear, and from our own politicians....who love power, profits and war more than your liberty.

That's my thoughts - if you're interested in more, this is a pretty good read:

"You Are Destroying America. Yes, You" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Brother
Posted by: Axiom69 on Aug 28, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, I do not like the thought of "big brother" or having my civil rights eroded a little at a time. I do however love those "wildest police videos" and "caught on tape shows". So as long as they're not watching me it's OK. Sound ludicrous? Of course but thats they we are in this country. Make all the restrictive laws you want as long as they don't affect me. How many people do motorcycle helmet laws affect? If you don't ride then you probably don't care and figure hey, it saves lives. If it saves so many lives then why don't people in cars wear them? If they passed that law people would flip out. But hey, it will save lives. If you don't own a gun then gun control probably doesn't bother you because hey, it saves lives. If you're a man the abortion laws probably aren't very high on your radar. But hey, lets save some lives! Not a smoker? Lets restrict smoking just about everywhere and tack on another dollar per pack tax so we can save some lives!
I want to ride my harley without a helmet, smoke some marlboros, eat a whopper, shoot some guns and drink some beer. I KNOW IT MAY NOT BE HEALTHY FOR ME! I AM AN ADULT. IT'S MY BODY. JUST LET ME DO MY THING AND LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!
I may not even want to do those things but If I do I don't need some stuffed suit in Washington telling me it's bad for me so I can't. Everyone get's their panties in a bunch when a law affects their rights but are silent when the law affects someone else's. If you want to bitch about "big brother" then make sure it's not just when he's watching you. The ACLU has actually defended the KKK's right to spew their hateful speech. They should be commended for that as sickening as it must have been to do so. But why is the ACLU silent on the most controversial Constitutional right in the Bill of Rights? The 2nd Ammendment? Who cares, let's save some lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Big Brother Posted by: ben24
» RE: Big Brother Posted by: chugach3Dguy
» Big Blunder Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Big Brother Posted by: JAVA
» RE: Big Brother Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Big Brother Posted by: ben24
We need accountability.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Aug 28, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know that unchecked powers of surveillance and data mining will quickly degenerate into monitoring, then prosecution, blackmail and character assassination of political dissidents (Move-on members? Democrats?) They always do. We tend to think we can keep our heads down, stay out of politics, and "they" won't bother us.

But no one talks about all the other nasty uses these tools can and will be put to. How about the law enforcement officer or surveillance contractor who uses the cameras and phone taps to stalk his girlfriend? Or the one who sells this service? What about corporate espionage? Who would know why their competitors are suddenly always one step ahead of them?

Lets say on a business trip to Des Moines, you meet someone at the hotel bar. You go to Walgreen's and buy a pack of condoms. Then you and your friend go to your room. Will someone be compiling this data, building a case for extortion? It is exactly this sort of information that the FBI held against Martin Luther King, in arguably less freewheeling times. With the data mining tools available today, millions of people could be targeted for searches, not for terrorist ties, but for "actionable" data. Who is to say the watchers won't compile lists of people simply subject to extortion or espionage.

But some people say "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be concerned." But then, what if someone you trust has something to hide, like your business partner or your government representative?

One of the most frightening aspects of the government intrusions that have been authorized since 9/11 is an inexorable lessening of accountability.This will only lead to more abuse, both by agencies and by individuals acting as free agents within those agencies.

Accountability should be strengthened, not diminished if we are to avoid "Big Brother" in the worst sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

surveillance is a non-governmental tax
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 28, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations own a majority of the politicians the majority of the time.

They develop surveillance technology because they can. They pitch it to the politicians they own as being in the public interest. The pols are happy to be seen to be doing something.

Something must be done.
This is something.
Let's do it.

We pay for it, even if the claim to efficiency is spurious and it destroys our right to privacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You guys all heard about this:
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 28, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canadian Union Demands Inquiry into SPP Police Provocateurs

"One of Canada's largest labour unions, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) yesterday demanded a public inquiry be launched into an incident recorded on video of what they claim to be evidence of an attempt by police to incite a riot at a peaceable protest of the Security and Prosperity Partnership meetings held in Canada last week."

you can see much more by typing SPP Provocateurs into google news and youtube

They've been doing this sort of thing for decades, at all levels of government. It has had an immeasurably huge effect on the politcal climate over the last 50 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Declaration of RE-Independence
Posted by: CaptainChurch on Aug 28, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read about the ONLY Un-used portion of our original founding papers that can save the USA!~~~
"The Declaration of RE-Independence" on:
http://CaptainChurch.proboards57.com
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=24582
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=15311
http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?user=ChurchCaptain

Jim Sorrell

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Privilege preserved = Politics and Business merged
Posted by: eddie torres on Aug 28, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surveillance will be the tool that ensures corporate "stability" in a world where enemies lurk everywhere.

Threat Level has a brief item about a new "2008 presidential campaign conversation-tracking tool" called Wonkosphere that identifies "buzz" from political blogs and ranks candidates depending on who is "topmost on bloggers' minds". In particular, the software used by Wonkosphere is called "Listening Post" from Arizona-based Crawdad Technologies: "...the private sector uses the software to monitor consumer buzz about their products in the blogosphere and across social media."

Compare the privatization concept and corporate software behind Wonkosphere with this line from Naomi Klein in the article above:

"Elections are a crude tool for taking the public temperature -- these methods allow constant, exact monitoring of our beliefs. Think of surveillance as the new participatory democracy; of wiretapping as the political equivalent of Total Request Live."

So, if you're an owner why go to the billion-dollar expense of rigging an election the old-fashioned way - where uninformed wage slaves make poor decisions and can upset all the best laid plans (once in a blue moon)? Instead, owners can choose candidates in the primary process from a pre-ranked pool that is vetted by anonymous unpaid self-appointed experts - experts who won't upset the system because that would marginalize their influence.

The next step in blurring the divide between the public and private sectors is to fully annex the political sphere as soon as enough fear has been distributed by the corporate-controlled media, and enough surplus capacity is installed in the surveillance and monitoring systems. The divide is already a blurred chalk outline crossed hourly by a revolving-door hiring process - particularly in the security, intelligence, and lobbying sectors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does Protest Work?
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Aug 28, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There will come a time, very soon I think, when citizens will finally tire of our lives being taken over, of having to pay our jailers. What to do? Does protest work anymore? They have proven most effective at controlling the message.

When people realize that democracy really isn't working for them anymore, they will do what they have always done: revolt.

Nobody wants to have to resort to violence, so what do you do? How about refusing to pay the bill? A country-wide, or continent-wide campaign of tax refusal. It's no different than when a shady contractor does a shabby roofing job, you just refuse to pay them. Send a clear message that you will no longer fund a government that doesn't work for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Does Protest Work? Posted by: Dboy
The model actually dates back to before 9/11 -it's a post Seattle response
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 28, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What was at the top of the FBI priority list in the spring and summer of 2001? It certainly wasn't tracking potential Saudi terrorists in the United States - Bush had told them to 'back off' and had pushed out the lead FBI expert in that area, John O'Neil (who died in the WTC on 9/11).

FBI headquarters refused to investigate the numerous warnings coming from citizens, foreign intelligence and even FBI field agents regarding likely hijackings. See Coleen Rowley's memo to FBI Chief on this very issue.

No, the main FBI priority in the summer of 2001 was spying on potential protestors before the upcoming WTO meeting in Washington. From May 10, 2001:

But it was the final paragraph in Freeh's assessment of "left-wing extremist groups" that raised eyebrows among antiglobalization activists: "Anarchist and extremist socialist groups-many of which, such as the Workers World Party, Reclaim the Streets and Carnival Against Capitalism-have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States," Freeh said. "For example, anarchists, operating individually and in groups, caused much of the damage during the 1999 World Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Seattle..."

"...Verheyden-Hilliard notes that protests in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Washington have been met with excessive police response: illegal arrests, intrusive surveillance, pepper spray and the employment of agents provocateur. Washington police traveled to Philadelphia, Quebec and Genoa to observe protests, while local and state police are cooperating with the FBI on "joint anti-terrorism task forces." She adds: "It appears there's been substantial funding, sending people all around the country."


See also: Is the FBI tracking online protesters? By Amy Standen, Salon, May 2, 2001

Thus, instead of focusing on the real threat, the FBI joined up with local police forces and sent agents into anti-globalization groups. They used agent provocateurs (see the above post) to instigate violence, a tactic that continues to this day... despite corporate media attempts to downplay the story.

Other infiltration and disruption by government since 9/11:

Fresno, California Peace Group 2004

Oakland - police officers get themselves elected to lead protest, 2003

Pentagon database on Students Against War

This is only the tip of the iceberg. The FBI, local city police, University of California police, the Pentagon, and sheriff's departments have been using their JTTF (joint terrorism task force) connections to collect information on student activists and anti-war and anti-globalization groups under the guise of 'stopping terrorism'.

This is illegal, and any officer caught participating should be sent to prison, along with the architects at FBI and Justice and the Pentagon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Is it legal...? part 2 Posted by: eddie torres
» Out of control... Posted by: thoughtcriminal
One Nation Under Surveillance
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 28, 2007 12:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his 1992 book, Visions of Liberty, former Executive Director of the ACLU, Ira Glasser writes:

"The use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping emerged during the Prohibition era. Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger whom the government wished to search. It placed taps in the basement of his office building and on wires in the streets near his home. No physical entry into his office or home took place. Olmstead was convicted entirely on the basis of evidence from the wiretaps.

"In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Olmstead argued that the taps were a search conducted without a warrant and without probable cause, and that the evidence seized against him should have been excluded because it was illegally gathered. He also argued that his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself was violated.

"By a 5-4 vote, the Court rejected his arguments and upheld the government's power to wiretap without limit and without any Fourth Amendment restrictions, on the grounds that no actual physical intrusion had taken place.

"Olmstead's Fifth Amendment claim was also dismissed on the grounds that he had not been compelled to talk on the telephone, but had done so voluntarily. Thus the Court upheld the government's power to do by trickery and surreptitious means what it was not permitted to do honestly and openly. It wasn't until 1967, in a similar case involving gambling, that the Court overruled the Olmstead decision by an 8-1 margin and recognized that the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

"Interestingly, these cases arose in the context of crimes like bootlegging and gambling. During the past twenty years, the majority of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping by both state and federal officials has been in cases involving drug dealing and gambling.

"Serious crimes of violence, such as homicide, assault, rape, robbery, and burglary, are rarely the target of electronic eavesdropping, which is not normally a useful tool in such cases.

"From the beginning, when wiretapping was virtually invented to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol, to the late 1960s, when gambling was a major target, to the present, when the use and sale of drugs other than alcohol are the main target, these intrusive devices have been used mostly to enforce laws aimed at punishing and proscribing personal conduct that society deems immoral.

"Because such conduct essentially involves private activities among consenting adults who are all likely to want to keep those activities secret, they are harder to investigate and prosecute than crimes like robbery or burglary, in which an unwilling victim will probably aid any investigation...the invasion of privacy inherent in wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping remains with us as part of the legacy of our attempts to criminalize personal conduct.

"The other major use of electronic eavesdropping has been to punish political dissent. For decades, former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used wiretaps and other electronic devices to spy on political figures and citizens not yet suspected of having committed a crime. He built vast dossiers on their political activities and personal lives. Special units of local police called 'Red Squads' did the same."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I agree with the tone of the article--that we need less monitoring...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 28, 2007 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...of private citizens by Big Government entities, the substance just seems a little...off(?).

Example: the right to freedom of expression that people in the U.S. enjoy is both coupled and decoupled with regard to the right of the people to peaceably assemble in public places. Not knowing whether or not our friends north of the border share that right is important in determining whether the government in Quebec was behaving according to their people's standard reflected by their representatives when it chose to allow people to exercise their expression over CCTV rather than impeding traffic by marching on Ye Olde Towne Square.

Elections are a crude tool for taking the public temperature -- these methods allow constant, exact monitoring of our beliefs.

Wow. Define constant, and then apply it to our current president's policies and the ongoing, ill-advised, draining, and (apparently) perpetual war in Iraq. Couple that to the fact that among our two dominant political parties--Money and Power*--there is often a razor-thin margin of victory and defeat, and the logical conclusion is that our elections actually monitor what a few hundred thousand people who change their minds or are newly eligible or newly motivated to vote believe.

As to the rest, no we don't need more I.D.; most of us know who we are just fine and are therefore poorly served by the creation of a new, vast Department of Further I.D.ingU. Sean Gonsalves, on this very site (surprise, surprise :) ) has a very good treatment of why national I.D. cards don't work, for all the obvious reasons, but statistically broken down so well hopefully even people who enjoy gambling or the lotto can understand them.

I recommend his article.

*I forget which is which, too, sometimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Refuse!
Posted by: talkville on Aug 29, 2007 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It's for your own 'Good' " goes the old saying. GPS on the infant on the teen-ager on the adult. Soon, and I personally believe already, our society will be under an Eye. Somebody is looking and it is not any theological construction -- it is flesh and blood human beings just like us. It is, if not Total, aways already Totalitarian. To paraphrase Mr A Gonzalez and his logics: the attentions placed by such as Hannah Arendt, Emma Goldman, Leon Trotsky and many others upon the totalitarian and 'authoritarian' (Adorno) tendencies in this "modern" age of ours are QUAINT. Multitudes historically have been on the whole 'conservative' - they accept more than they reject. "That's Life", "We all gotta Eat", "We're all in this together" etc etc. The Powers currently abroad in our period know this and, more significantly, exploit and utilize this knowledge. The "Good" (whether in greater or lesser numbers) is given definition by someone (in alliance or individually); these are flesh and blood individuals and they are nowadays asserting powers and privileges to define and determine what is "Good". Unilaterally. And these concern theologic as well as state actors. Assertions are not arguments, they are exercises of power, and it must be recognized that these are power-full forces at work currently.

It's past time, not to reject but to REFUSE; other-wise we soon will have a Monos-Arche and not only in countries but globally. Refuse the "divine rights of Kings" or of any others who mask their efforts in that direction. A global Monarch is a Terrible Parasite and the Idea is exerting powerful pressure upon all of our lives. Think deeply and not so much in extension -- and REFUSE. The "Liberty" of Bush and Blair, of Reagan and Thatcher, is not our Liberty but theirs. We are just supposed to accept it and co-operate with it. If there is such a quality as Liberty in our Social Relations, it is properly of us ALL and not exclusively of SOME.

Technology is tools, plain and simple. And whose technology that is will affect how and why it is applied. The private is the public and the public is the private and someone is controlling it all - check out the word "cybernetics". Refuse the premises, the assumptions and the logic. Surveillance is the language of Power; un-accountable Power. Tools are no longer ours; we must face up to this fact despite APPEARANCES. The trans-valuation of Means and Ends is something each one of us must ponder.

Whether paternalist, generous and friendly (e.g. "liberal") or paternalistic, strict and punitive (e.g. "liberal"), we must re-visit the Premises and REFUSE the current Conclusions. Totalitarian living is closer at hand than we may suppose. Capitalist promises will always be deferred and remain promises. We need to seek a better, more just, more dignified and indeed more decent world here. When promise becomes dogma, we'll all be lost. Refuse the camera and the GPS and the YouTubes and the MySpaces. Despite APPARENT benefits, we are being guided into the world of oligarchic despots. Overall, it serves them and not us. After all, each and every one of us must PAY in one way or another for ACCESS to all these means -- they are not owned by us, despite what we may believe (i.e. Wish).

The words Protest and Refusal ought never to acquire quotation marks. The Eye is someone's, and it is not a deity's -- it is a flesh and blood human being's, either yours or mine or -- whose?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE TERRORISTS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA!
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Aug 29, 2007 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's just that they're so very good at pointing to other people who are no great danger to the country and calling them terrorists. The real terrorists are the neocons, the fake Christians who want a theocratic state instead of a democracy, the corporations working for a convenient fascist state - those are the terrorists. They work very hard to make sure as many of us as possible stay afraid of the wrong people and the wrong things so they can work in the shadows and take what they want while we're looking elsewhere.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, I've never put a frog in hot water.
Posted by: Axiom69 on Aug 30, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read about it though. It is said that if you put a frog in hot water it will jump out. But if you put a frog in cool water and slowly heat it up it will not and eventually die. That is what's happening in our country. We are not losing our civil liberties all at once. They are slowly being eroded at such a pace that most people don't notice. Only after they are all gone will people see it but it will be too late and there will be no recourse. Nobody will own guns, Nobody will be able to get a "permit" to protest, the corporate owned media will only be talking about Britany and Paris and those that try to speak up will become "detainee's" with no access to a lawyer. Think it can't happen in America? Cut and paste this into your notebook then read it in 10 years and tell me how crazy it sounds. That is if the internet "filter" doesn't censor it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lawlessness
Posted by: JAVA on Sep 8, 2007 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are these companies suppose to think about these people who are being spied on? When they get these letters or orders are they automatically convinced that some person that they have never met is some kind of criminal or evil person? Isn't this just creating the image of there being an issue when there may have never been a real problem to begin with. Now there is the suspicion that these people have done something wrong. When in fact, up until that moment they've been living normal lives just like every one else. Another thing, who decides this list of people to pursue? Is it the people out there that are pissed off at their neighbors and knows someone to call to turn in these so called "Suspected" individuals in? Someone whose boyfriend is a police officer? Someone who didn't sleep with some powerful man in politics or the military officer? Are these letters really secret? Can these supposed investigations be made public? If they are then why? To destroy some hapless person out there whose done nothing but work hard other than piss off the wrong person?
Or is this another rise of Adolph Hitler under "[The] Political Awakening."

Is this the Nazi regime putting into practice modern day racial policies that are aimed to "purify" and strengthen the [American] "Aryan" population?

ARE WE IN FACT TURNING IN THE JEWS THAT ARE LIVING NEXT DOOR?

Who are the [Jews]; are they the people who speak of democracy and peace?

Should we be afraid to speak our opinions about politics in our own homes?
Lets catch the real criminals. Not Grandma's out there chatting with the Grandkids.

Another thing, whose to say that these people receiving these letters are up standing? So here we are spying and handing out letters to people that could be real criminals. Imagine someone with very low ethics or morals receiving these so call NSLs. Now we have people who have permission to steal money from these blind and deaf individuals don't even know why they're suddenly having issues. Why not have apartments rigged with cameras. We could really have people spying on renters in their bathrooms. It could become a game of sorts, for example, mind games and harassment to total strangers. It's okay if everybody knows what’s going on but the "Suspect." Now we have average Americans who are experiencing what they know is illegal activity but have no one to answer their call for help. The result is absolute lawlessness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]