On Fri, 12 May 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


"Perry E. Metzger" writes:
-+------------------------
|
| And a personal note to you all:
|
| Let me again remind people that if you do not inform your elected
| representatives of your displeasure with this sort of thing,
| eventually you will not be in a position to inform them of your
| displeasure with this sort of thing.
|

Perry,

While I agree with you, the public does not,
so far as I can tell, find itself willing to
risk insecurity for the benefit of preserving
privacy, as this article in today's Boston
Globe would tend to confirm.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/12/most_put_security_ahead_of_privacy/

  Most put security ahead of privacy
  (By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff)
  Mark Jellison, a Verizon customer in Quincy, isn't fazed that his
  phone company may have turned over his calling records and those of
  millions of others to the National Security Agency as part of an
  effort to thwart terrorism.

  <snip>

Probably because most Americans believe they are being spied on anyways. (And have for a very long time.)

I find it interesting that the question is always about "fighting terrorism". I am willing to bet you would get different answers if the question was phrased as "Should a president be allowed to carry out massive wiretaps to spy on his political enemies?"

I have seen NO proof that this spying was limited, or even directed towards, "terrorists". (Unless Democrats, peace activists, eco-freaks, hackers, and the like are now considered "Terrorists".) Since there is no oversight allowed, we must assume that this effort has more to do with rooting out and destroying threats to the President than it does to actual threats to the security of the country.

--
"Waiter! This lambchop tastes like an old sock!" - Sheri Lewis

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to