AT&T Puts New Smiley Face On Privacy Policy > Chief Privacy Officer?

said by SLD:

Even if it lead to losing other important Constitutionally protected rights? I mean, if you're willing to give up privacy, why not freedom of speech while you're at it?

said by Matt:

You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them.

said by SLD:

You've obviously never studied Constitutional Law, or truly understand the concept of the "slippery slope".

said by badtrip:

The police's function is not to insulate the citizenry from harm (physical or otherwise); their function is social control and protection of private property.

said by Matt:

For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more.

On my "things to worry about meter," this ranks pretty low. It's sits between whether I should have chicken or fish for lunch today and my post-shower decision of boxers or briefs.

said by Matt:

Who said anything about the police?

said by badtrip:

Wow.

No one can point to anything that has been done wrong with the data because the Bush/Obama administrations would/will not let any case regarding this matter go to court.

You have to go to court ***before*** you can determine that any laws were broken. The very fact that they do not allow this issue into the courts is very damning IMO.

said by badtrip:

You did. Or have they changed police depts from being govt agencies?

said by Matt:

Then by your logic all governmental agencies are the police? Interesting.

said by Matt:

You would hold up the constitution as a shield with one hand a seek to supplant ... oh wait, let me start over. You hold up the constitution in one hand yet are willing to discard other basic rights such as the right of "innocent until proven guilty." If the government deems this a critical to national security, too critical to be publicly disclosed, then I trust them.

What I think drives people nuts about things like this is the same basic human trait that many children display. If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more.

said by Matt:

If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more.

said by badtrip:

f you mean I want this to be argued in court but Bush/Obama says no and that answer in turn makes me want the issue to be argued in court even more, then I'd agree with you.
Innocent until proven guilty only works when one can actually GO TO COURT.

said by Matt:

For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more.

said by cline3621:

I would ask you to do some reasearch on 'Brandon Mayfield' and his situation with the federal government from 2004-2009 before saying what is quoted above.

Unfortunately, I could not find the link to the Wall Street Journal story that talked about the FBI illegally entering Mr. Mayfields residence without warrant, to set listening devices on his telephones.