3 Shocking Revelations from NSA's Most Terrifying Program Yet

[Pholus]

167. I think you do overlook the 9th Amendment here.

That was exactly what Justice Goldberg said in his Griswold opinion -- the Constitution does not explictly say we do NOT have a right to privacy either.

Now of course, Robert Bork didn't like that opinion but I frankly think the world would be a bit worse off if he had been actually been placed where he could do some real damage.

And you're right, the secret memo's first line of defense is to remain secret. The second line of defense is your fig leaf. And so, despite the fact that this is simply wrong in so many ways there will be no accountability. Par for the course.

As to the concept of internet privacy never existing, that can be credited to the almighty dollar
-- yet another way the 1% sticks it to the rest of us. Certainly the web of 2002 was less consumer friendly, but more of an interesting place to be. Scott McNealy and his famous "Privacy is dead, get over it!" quote? You'd hardly expect otherwise from a person standing to make steaming piles of money from treating his users' data as a product to be bought and sold.

There are many privacy protecting laws right now: Sure you can carry a tape recorder to any meeting you want, but try to circulate the data you collected and you could face charges. Law enforcement seems very able to confiscate and destroy photographic records of their activities they don't like as well. We certainly have no problems with pursuing violations of HIPAA. It ends up being very easy to legislate privacy in that case. Data can be collected only for a particular reason, it must be destroyed as soon as practicable and it must never be transferred to a third party with no stake in the original transaction. Add some real teeth to violations (as with HIPAA) and soon people even start complaining that it is TOO hard to get information.

But some 1%'ers will lose profits, and that is simply intolerable, so privacy doesn't exist. Only tacked onto the end of that is the surveillance state's toys. They certainly would not have built their infrastructure if the Scott McNealy's hadn't done the heavy lifting for them.

Privacy ends up having a dollar value just like anything and is becoming a perquisite of the wealthy. If you are an agri-giant, you are in the process of getting laws making it illegal to photograph or video or investigate your activities by paying money to politicians. If you are a member of the 1% of the 1%, you can hire people to hide your business activities from the inspection, the public welfare be damned. You certainly have privacy if you buy an island or a remote estate, go to exclusive clubs, use exclusive purchasing services, hire others to send your messages for you and the like. Heck you can even be like Rush and send out your maid to buy your drugs for you. So privacy is still a valuable thing these days -- provided you can pay for it.

As far as the security services' arguments for their activities, it's their job to ask for that. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't and I don't begrudge that. Doesn't mean they should get what they are asking for though. Nor should they have rammed it through in secret. It was obviously controversial enough even amongst themselves.

The outrage is long past due, as is the reckoning.