4 ms·
The phone company is the best example because with a couple of alligator clips they could easy listen in on phone conversations. It's understood that listening
by MichaelApproved 13y ago
The phone company is the best example because with a couple of alligator clips they could easy listen in on phone conversations. It's understood that listening in is a rare occurrence but we are ok with it happening.
Same goes for FB, Google and other providers. They have the ability to read your mail and occasionally do just like the phone company.
Bonus example: voice mail. It's just like email since its a message sitting on the service providers computer. Can the Feds just listen to those messages?
- srumple 13y agoThe problem here is not the level of access they get to our information. The problem is how they are allowed to use that access. The 4th Amendment doesn't really prevent the Feds from snooping on anything they want to, it just prevents them from acting on any of that information.
- pyre 13y agoHuh? If the FBI busts into someone's house without a warrant there are going to be more repercussions than just "we can't use this information in court."
- Zimahl 13y agoI guess what people don't have a problem with there is that at least someone is physically listening in on a phone line - it requires manpower to do and thus is very deliberate. It's when we are being data mined by the government there's a problem. I think we all don't mind being data mined for advertising (within reason) but when we are being watched to be 'kept in line' that's where there's a problem. At that point it's more like 'Minority Report' where you are being scrutinized before you even do anything.
- err_badprocrast 13y agoI don't like being data mined, full stop. Advertisers don't get a free pass; I would much rather pay for any service than have companies I don't even know the names of compile mile-long paper trails of my online (and possibly offline) activities.