Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,905
edits
Changes
→Why Does Pervasive Domestic Surveillance of Law-Abiding Citizens Matter to Conservatives?
This apt quote best explains the reason why this pervasive domestic surveillance matters to many [[patriot]] [[conservative]]s and [[veteran]]s, who are inherently against [[big government]], and to many [[citizen]]s interested in [[preparedness]]:
This apt quote best explains the reason why this pervasive domestic surveillance matters to many [[patriot]] [[conservative]]s and [[veteran]]s, who are inherently against [[big government]], and to many [[citizen]]s interested in [[preparedness]]:
{{Quotebox|The progress of [[science]] in furnishing the [[big government|government]] with means of [[espionage]] is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the [[Police state|government]], without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a [[jury]] the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. 'That places the [[liberty]] of every man in the hands of every [[tyrant|petty officer]]' was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these. 1 To Lord Camden a far slighter intrusion seemed '[[subversive]] of all the comforts of society.' Can it be that the [[Constitution]] affords no protection against such invasions of [[Fourth Amendment|individual security]]?"
** [[Louis Brandeis]]''' (1856-1941), [[United States Supreme Court]] [[Associate Justice]] Dissenting, ''[[Olmstead v. United States]]'', 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
** [[Louis Brandeis]]''' (1856-1941), [[United States Supreme Court]] [[Associate Justice]] Dissenting, ''[[Olmstead v. United States]]'', 277 U.S. 438 (1928).}}
[[Daniel Ellsberg]] explained the significance of the Snowden leaks which was played out within two years during the [[Trump-Russia investigation]] and the [[Obama administration]]'s [[FISA abuse]] scandal. Ellsberg asked sceptics: {{Quotebox|"Do they really believe that real [[democracy]] is viable, when one branch of government, the Executive, knows or can know every detail of every private communication (or credit card transaction, or movement) of: every journalist; every source to every journalist; every member of Congress and their staffs; every judge, at every level up to the Supreme Court? Do they think that every one of these people "has nothing to hide," nothing that could be used to blackmail them or manipulate them, or neutralize their dissent to Executive policies, or influence voting behavior? Is investigative journalism, or aggressive Congressional investigation of the Executive, or court restraints on Executive practices, really possible with that amount of transparency to the Executive of their private and professional lives and associations? And without any of those checks, the kind of democracy you have is that of the German Democratic Republic in [[East Germany]], with its [[Stasi]] (which had a minuscule fraction of the surveillance capability the NSA has now, but enough to turn a fraction of the population of East Germany into secret Stasi informants)."<ref>
https://freedom.press/news-advocacy/highlights-from-daniel-ellsbergas-reddit-ama-on-edward-snowden-and-nsa-surveillance/</ref>}}
==See also==
==See also==