Got anything to be worried about? Care if your phone is tapped?

Question

I could care less if the FBI taps my phone, or listens to my cell calls. Privacy is an illusion. Cops patrol the streets looking for bad guys, why can't they patrol the telephone wires?

If you aren't doing something naughty, no worries.

Hi Shrink: I'm sure no court would allow any tapped conversations be allowed in court between an attorney and client, even if they DID hear them, and record them.

Nichlet: Just like the thousands of cameras all over London. Big deal, I say, agreed.

For what it's worth, I would limit the ability to a national organization like NSA or FBI, local police wouldn't (shouldn't) do the listening in, except in court ordered (warrantable) situations.

Hi Chi: there is a legitimate arguement that says it's NOT a violation of your right to privacy, as the calls travel outside your home and property, and to another person. They travel over Federally regulated wires, and through publicly owned and/or regulated right-of-ways.

g: The difference is this: UNDER OATH. Pretty straight forward. You can lie your tussy off on the phone, to whomever you wish. It is up to you what you say. In front of Congress, under oath, you neither control the conversation nor have power over the answers.

Privacy is an illusion, that's my point. We lost it a long time ago.

And this question is by no means partisan. If I believed we still had privacy, I'd fight against wire tapping too. But we don't. And we all might as well deal with that.

Does anyone really think the NSA doesn't monitor internet traffic? What's the difference?

Apple: As long as your communications don't leave your property, I wouldn't disagree with you. But unless you own all the property between you and the caller, including exchanges, your message left your control.

Did you know that your trash is subject to inspection without a warrant? It's known as "abandoned property" as soon as you set it on the street to be picked up.

Answer 1

Nope tap away.

Answer 2

I have nothing to worry about, but I do care if my phone is tapped without a warrant. I display an expectation of privacy on the phone when I walk into another room, shut the door, and lower my voice. You can bet that if I don't want my roommate to overhear what I'm saying, I sure don't want the government overhearing it, either.

A person out and about on the streets has no such expectation of privacy. Your words and actions are being conveyed to anyone else in public -- therefore, the analogy between streets and telephone wires is a poor one.

To say that a person should be open to an invasion of their privacy if they aren't committing any illegal acts is to display ignorance of history and the reasons our founding fathers bothered to include the Fourth Amendment.

EDIT: Even if you do leave your property, the conversation may still enjoy Fourth Amendment protection. A call made in a telephone booth enjoys the same right to privacy.

The case you refer to, Greenwood v. California, did hold that warrants were not required for inspections of garbage bags left on a curb because the bags are being purposely conveyed to a third party and placed where any bypasser could go through them. The only thing purposely conveyed to a third party during a telephone calls is the number being dialed; we want operators connecting us to the other person but we don't want them to stick around and listen in, do we?

If a message sent over the phone is considered 'abandoned property,' the same could be said for a letter that we mail. If that's the case, then the government should be able to open up our mail without probable cause too.

Answer 3

first off... real quick statement... if Bush has nothing to hide, why does he care if his people testify under oath or not? (using your logic)

but moving onto your actual question... I don't care if they tap mine... (besides the great amount of government waste it would be bothering to pay someone to do it)

and I'm assuming you're talking about Warrantless wiretapping, since that's what the fuss is about, most don't have a problem with just wiretaps with a warrant...

BUT, I actually think about how this could affect OTHERS (why do I never see Republicans doing this... do they realize that people other than themselves exist in the world? If so, they rarely seem to act, think or speak like they understand it?)

so, let's say Barrack Obama is calling his campaign manager to talk about some plans... if there is no WARRANTS... there is NO ONE to stop Bush/Republican sympathizers from listening in... or even anyone (besides those directly involved) that would ever even know...

you may say "he would never do that, stop being silly".. if so, read on for the ULTIMATE REASON

now... expand your mind a little... this is crazy... your head will explode... but let's think about this in ONE other key way...

so, if any president does something... then from then on it's ok for any president to do it... it sets the standard, legally... so the real question is... do you trust ANY PRESIDENT that will EVER BE ELECTED with this responsibility... that NO ONE will ever abuse it... imagine Democrats getting elected, odds are, one will one day...(I mean the war on terror will probably go on for at least 20 more years, there will always be some terrorist you could blame for something out there as an excuse to keep it going)

if you know legal history... you know doors that are opened are VERY hard to close... do you want to open that door?

Answer 4

So you do care a little, as you say you could care less. Or you are just another republican illiterate retard who can't speak English, like the moron who violated the Constitution and allowed illegal wiretaps. Privacy may be an illusion, but at least we had the possibility of fighting the illegal violations of it until this Nazi retard had his fat crackhead brother rig the elections in Florida.
And the other guy said nicely - oath or not, they would fabricate something to lock you away, whereas Dumbya's thugs are criminals and he knows it as he is the worst, that's why he protects them.

Answer 5

They can tap all the terrorists they want to but leave mine alone.

I have nothing to hide but what I talk about is none of their business.

I am all for tapping all in coming and out going overseas calls.

They don't actually tap them though. They have a software program that searches for certain key words, if it detects one then a human is alerted.

By the way, Clinton was the one that authorized this program.

Answer 6

and it's the people like you who call others. Commie, and socialist. you are the one living in an "illusion" buddy.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

You want to live in China, go move there.

keep your commie ideas to yourself.

Answer 7

Although I have nothing to hide or to worry about it is still an invasion of my privacy for them to listen in. If they want to do that they better have probable cause and a warrent from a judge. But, of course the Constitution is just a GD piece of paper to GWB and so it figures they would do this sort of thing. Although people get upset when Bush is compared to Hitler they have to understand this kind of stuff is why.

Answer 8

I totally agree with you...
But some cops are crappies...
They tap us for fun and leisure....

Depending on the purpose of tapping, then i will be agreeable to that since i have nothing to hide.

Cheers

Answer 9

Actually, yes. I do care about this. My clients are entitled to priviledged communication with me, and therefore, I care about my privacy. I don't like the phone tapping business.

But it is certainly nothing new.

Answer 10

I'm not worried, we pay the FBI and others a lot of tax money to hunt down islamic fascists and bring them to justice before they attack us again.

I'd be worried if they didn't profile and tap the network of incoming and outgoing phone calls of the religious lunatics who want to kill me, my family and my dog.

Wake up and smell the jihad people.

Answer 11

Good for you . I support your decision. I also support the law. If you want to give up your right to privacy that is totally your decision to make.

You don't have the right to make that decision for me. People who are willing to break laws to suit their agenda is what worries me. Especially when those people swore an oath to protect the Constitution, not use it when it is convenient.