So you think you have Nothing to HIDE ?

[JDPriestly]

36. Perhaps you haven't. But the procedure in and of itself

has the potential to "chill" speech and association. That is my view. You never know when you might hesitate to search for something on Google because "someone might find out."

This is as extreme an intrusion on fundamental rights as anything the East Germans did in terms of the snooping (not the punishments, but the snooping itself).

I am very disheartened by this knowledge. That this is being done demonstrates a deep and threatening distrust on the part of the US government of US citizens. That is a contradiction of the idea of democracy. The government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. If that is the case, then the "government" and the "people" are not separate, and the government does not operate a surveillance program on the people.

If we don't trust the foreigners who live in our country, we should ask them to leave. Once a person becomes a US citizen, we should consider them to be part of the people of, by and for the government exists.

And this is also why I object to H1-B visas. If we have people who are not American citizens working in our country, they should still have the opportunity to become American citizens, to eventually become a part of the governing body of our country -- that is the people who are in our democracy really supposed to be the government itself in that they elect the government.

Randome, I have to add that the "chilling effect" is not my point, not my idea. It is a legal concept held by the Supreme Court of the United States. I did not make it up. I read the cases and the textbooks about the cases that set it forth and explain it. Once your fundamental right has been "chilled," it is too late. Your freedom is gone. And this is true even if you never stop to think, "Should I say or search or think this?"

Although I would like to see some sort of gun control laws, this is also what gun owners are worried about with a registration of gun ownership. Will they stop to think before they buy a gun, "The government or my employer or my friends my judge me as being a terrorist if I buy this gun?" If so, then their right to own a gun has been chilled.

So this is a major legal concept that presents many complex problems. It is one of the most important checks on the power of government. Republicans talk a lot about regulations. Regulations are not a big problem in reality. It is this kind of "keeping tabs" and snooping and surveillance that actually deprive us of our freedom.

Most regulations exist to balance the rights of one person with the rights of another. The surreptitious surveillance on our e-mail accounts, our Google searches, out telephone records do not balance the rights of one person against the rights of another. They are sneaky ways to create a record that can be used against people. They are a means of control, a threat to the hapless guy who writes a nasty letter to his ex-girlfriend or, in a rebellious mood or out of curiosity, looks up some radical author or some name from the news on Google. They dampen curiosity and free spirits. They can also help catch criminals. But the courts have generally considered protecting personal freedom to be of higher importance than catching criminals. The government has the power in specific cases of criminal investigations to get a subpoena for pretty much anything they want based on probable cause. The wrong here is that they are not getting a subpoena based on specific probable cause but simply obtaining the issuance of a broad, blanket subpoena. This affects all of us.