Should we finish our privacy for security as told by President Bush?
154424
I think there is a balance but Bush has overstepped that in favior of taking away our right to privacy in the name of the war on terror. Terrorism does exist however I think that if we give up rights then the terroist have won. We need to stick to the things in our constitution that made our country free and great.
662509
Yes I think Bush is gonna hold on for the full term. We the people are continuing to hand over more and more of our liberties in the name of safety. Were afraid of terrorism. Were afraid of crime. Hell were even afraid of people who have thoughts that aren't dictated by the media or the government. Shame really.. I remember a time when we were free to speak our mind no matter how unpopular our thoughts.Once our forefathers thought freedom was worth dieing for now we cheapening the deaths of those who died for freedom by giving it away so trivially in the name of safety.
946657
I have nothing to hide, but I do want the benefit of privacy so that I can share things with friends and family without the rest of the world knowing about them. The government has no business being involved in my sex life or knowing who I sleep with. I want to keep certain acts from being known to the general population just as a matter of respect for myself and those around me.
638339
It's kind of a false dilemma.  Security and freedom can coexist, it just makes it a little harder.  I personally would rather be able to read, write, think, or say whatever I want without sanction than feel secure under surveillance.
127239
Ben Franklin said that "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."  \n\nI'm not sure if we will end up learning this the hard way, but we are becoming the USSA.  Wiretaps are part of a larger arsenal of tactics they are using to silence dissent.  It is likely that more sinister black ops programs exist that are tracking every one of us to some extent.  Think about every credit card purchase, every rewards card, every post on Yahoo Answers, every search engine search result, every survey, and every Amazon purchase or wish list being compiled and analyzed for keywords and other algorithm triggering events.  It is absolutely possible, and I would bet that it is happening now whether legal or not.  I believe it is completely antithetical to the definition of a "free" society, and I again believe it is to ultimately be used for more sinister purposes.
604740
Absolutely!!!!!!\njust look at how 911 changed the world regarding security giving rise to more Govts around the world giving pwers to their intelligence units etc.....there are powers beyond our sight and the more advanced we become the more dangerous cicumstances arises.....we say we live in a free world but there is no privacy...we have to go with flow or live as a hill billy......just take a google search of digital angel and u'll see what i mean for the future
425684
I speak from across the fence on this matter, but I will let you know what I hear most often. The Patriot Act that has broadened the government's ability to seek information from it's fellow citizens has left some more liberal voters upset. They feel that the government's noose of power has grown a bit tighter, and I assume they foresee a future government domination over the people of this nation. I do not know of any firsthand accounts where someone's privacy rights have been infringed upon, or violated. Not that I wish there was, but there doesn't seem to be anyone personally hurt by the Act. Personally, I've felt that as long as man would uphold his responsibilites to treat his fellow man with love, and respect there would be no need for government at all. But we both know that we fail to do this, therefore creating a need for government. So if the privilages we enjoy so dearly seem in danger, I believe it is because of our own faults. I hope that this has been helpful.
93003
Richard H - I hate to tell you this, but Americans do not have a "right to privacy". We certainly have an EXPECTATION of privacy, and hundreds of years of legal standards have reinforced that expectation, but no right to it. If you can find the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, I sure would love to know where.\n\nIt most definitely DOES NOT violate the First Amendment. If it did, there are hundreds of liberal courts in this nation that would have struck it down long ago. Americans are still free to say what they want - even if it is against the government. Look at Al Gore recently when he said ON SAUDI ARABIAN SOIL in a speech sponsored by the BIN LADEN FAMILY that the US committed "terrible abuses against Muslims" after 9/11. Americans can SAY whatever they want - most Americans tend to forget that there are consequences to false or harmful statements. Remember shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater??\n\nThe Patriot Act merely lets intelligence agencies share intelligence to try to put two and two together - which was one of the biggest recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I would love for you to point out documented cases of abuse due to the Patriot Act. You won't find any. The ACLU didn't find any, and if they can't with their resources, I doubt you will, either.\n\nplanksheer - It is NOT open season of First Amendment rights (see above reply to Richard H's uninformed post). The only people who have been denied those rights are detainees classified as terrorists and foreign combatants against the US military. They are not prisoners of war, and they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Geneva Convention right are only conferred upon uniformed soldiers of an organized Army. The President has the legal right to hold them.\n\nGranted, courts have already ruled that the government must begin looking at their cases to hold them further, and the President is complying with that. If he had such disregard for the law and Constitution, President Bush would have waved the big middle finger when ordered to begin reviewing cases.\n\nAnd then we have Jose Padilla. An American who was going to explode a dirty bomb on American soil. He should NEVER see the light of day again. He is a traitor and should be treated as such. He deserves whatever he gets.\n\nPeople should do a little research before they are so quick to condemn something. Especially when their arguments are based in inaccuracies and misinformation. Think for yourselves, people. Don't just regurgitate crap that Michael Moore and his ilk put out.
399102
No it will not but why are you doing it, do you not believe in rules and privacy?
1176745
I think it is awful.  Surveillance should only be done on people where the government has just cause.  People deserve to have some degree of privacy unless they have committed an act that causes them to give up that right.
186941
The huddled masses would ultimately rather be safe than free.  That is a rule that every political party and governmental system in the world understands.  Pres. Bush and company have used 9/11 to their advantage in this respect, by offering lucrative government contracts to large corporations in the power structure, thereby making signifacant cash off of the paranoid population.  \n\nMany citizens of the republican sway will say that we need to protect ourselves, and we are at war, and we are in danger.   Very paranoid.  We were ALWAYS in danger, and we ignored it, and we were just fine until that day in September.  \n\nGiving up freedoms and liberties cuts against the grain of the very exxence of our society, but most of those on the right really don't care, they are so paranoid and afraid of what could happen next.  \n\nI still think that giving up personal freedoms is a terrible thing, regardless of the threat.  The republicans aren't really trying to catch the ones that id 9/11 anyway, so what are they really protecting me from?
1098485
EXACTLY!!!\n\nThere is a story circulating right now about the Bush administration, ONCE AGAIN, violating privacy laws by getting access to all banking/financial transactions; although, they claim to have only looked at international transactions. They have the authority to do this BUT not until they go before a judge and get approval. Of course with Bush not believing in the consitution, he did not do that = broke the law AGAIN!!\n\nNow, to counter this Bush has been bombarding talk radio and Fox News (even saw an upset guy on pbs The Newshour yesterday about it) with propaganda that does not explain the entire story as I did in the first paragraph. \n\nTheir defense is we are in a 'war on terror'. So, basically because we are in a war on terror, they believe they can ignore all the laws and ppl's right to privacy, etc...\n\nSo, as you stated... with them attacking the press for reporting this story.. there goes freedom of speech and the press.\n\nBtw, the laws about a reporter revealing his/her source are very vague. A reporter does have the right to tell his/her source but most don't because that hinders ppl from wanting to tell them things later. I personally think that if someone tells a reporter something and the act of telling is in itself breaking the law then the reporter SHOULD be required to tell his/her source. IE, this Carl Rove thing about the CIA agent leak. We all know he was behind that but the reporter won't tell.
681498
hell no!!! it violates my Right to privacy, hello! why isn't anyone outraged about this. Whats the point of having the bill of right this a_s_s h_o_l_e (bush)is violating most of them, we might as well be Cuba!
167012
i say more of privacy issues
53756
I strongly believe in our right to privacy. However they are not listening to my phone calls, and if it would save American lives then I would gladly let them listen. One previous answer quoted Ben Franklin. However Franklin lived in a much different time and couldn't even imagine the enemyies we are facing today. How would you feel if they could have avoided the 911 attack by listening to a phone call and didn't because they did not want to infringe on the civil liberties of a few wack jobs.
272888
Our constitutional right to privacy was definitely negated in this situation. If the government suspects someone of having terroristic capabilities, I do not think it would be too hard for them to get a warrant to eavesdrop the legal way. Bush is just trying cover his butts, as well as other members of our government are doing likewise. There are many conspiracy theories floating around concerning Bush and a few other members of our government, I think it is time the people of this nation take our government back, too many "actors" in power with selfish intentions!
438357
there is no doubt we have lost some so-called civil liberties. no bush supporter will even endulge the question, but the non-answers will not help shed light on anything. what has to be looked at is the nsa wiretapping as it relates to FISA, the several cases of reclassification of documents, and the changes brought about by the patriot act. \n\n9-11 changed everything, and obviously changes such as healing the rift between the cia and fbi needed to be addressed, as well as investigating ways to track terrorist cells within the US. but rash changes to any existing laws are not the rational approach, and it only makes sense that a heated discussion of the pros and cons of any proposed new laws be welcomed.  the scary thing here is that such discussions are not AT ALL welcomed by the administration nor by its supporters. this does two things: a) it hinders the effort to create effective legislation, and b) it reveals the apparent ulterior motives of this administration. both are quite alarming.