I did get the creeps the first time I noticed google was sending me ads that had to do with the topic of the gmail I was reading. Silly me. I thought someone was actually reading my email.

I’ve never really given much worry to the government snooping on me individually, or a corporation either. Why would they bother? And when I think about personal individual online friends, enemies, coworkers, children, church friends, etc. snooping on me, I aways come back to the same conclusion: the only way to avoid problem is to be the same person when (I think I’m) in private as when someone is watching. Then I’m less likely to embarrass myself. (I don’t always succeed in being H.O.T.–honest, open, transparent–but I think that is the goal I should have.)

Luke 12 (New Living Translation) says it nicely:

The time is coming when everything will be revealed; all that is secret will be made public. Whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be shouted from the housetops for all to hear!

This is one reason I’m skeptical about the so-called War on Terror; its been used to justify this invasive behavior, which the president has no doubt lied about. Remember when he said that when telephones are tapped, a warrant is first obtained. Then the whole NSA thing came out about instances where warrants were bypassed. It all like, “Well, would you rather the evildoers destroy us?…national security…terror alert…attack thwarted.”

But as the article pointed out, this isn’t just the government - its private corporations also. But there has been a marriage of the two. And when the government wants to know what kinds of searches you are doing on Yahoo! and Google, guess how they respond? Well, Google resisted at least.

I think there is plenty of doubt about this; just because you don’t trust him and think he’s evil or something doesn’t make it so. A warrant is USUALLY obtained prior to wiretapping, but OBVIOUSLY in some cases it takes too long to get a warrant. In the ongoing fight against terrorism, one can’t stick with old, antiquated rules that don’t recognize our technological advances. We are in the 21st century, not the 20th.

However much you may think that they don’t exist, Chris, there is such a thing as national security.

Direct quote from President George W. Bush:

“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

Notice he said “any time” a wiretap is mentioned, so the logic about how obvious it is in special circumstances to break the law and avoid the FISA court system just doesn’t cut it. No one is above the law. Not even if you are the president, and your daddy was the president. This is an obvious case where Bush was caught in a lie.

If it takes too long to get a warrant, then push for a change in the law. But don’t break the law and use that as an excuse.

Exactly, I am alarmed at the complete disrespect for the rule of law in the name of national security.

All of these so-called “legitimate” arguments involve a very loose interpretation of the Constitution, and undermine the spirit of the document. Presidential authority can never trump separation of powers. When checks and balances are in place and the administration deliberately supersedes them, all the while publicly claiming they are in compliance with them, how can they then make a constitutional argument to excuse their actions? I’m no expert in constitutional law, but I think I learned enough in my seventh-grade civics class to know how ridiculous that sounds.

Regards, Maverick