The FBI Wants Your Browsing History - Comments Page 2

Jacey, the purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT government power, not expand it. The authority derived from the people, and was loaned to to government, not the other way around. The framers would be appalled at what has been done to their document.

As to your soapbox, Hillary wants power, just like any other politician. She wouldn't protect our liberties and privacy any better than she's already demonstrated.

Thanks for the heads up. I have written both my Senators and my Congressman requesting they oppose this bill and any others like it. There is too much secrecy attached. There needs to be a balance.

AT LAST the FBI cannot 'walk the talk' strutting around the US and elsewhere boasting that they are the elite. They may have the best equipment but not the best brains or energy. This recent tragedy should not have happened as 'he' was already being 'observed' hahaha and, of course, 911 would not have happened if the so-called elite had not let the newbie pilot out of their sight and had co-operated with other enforcement agencies. Now they are human just like my MI5 and other less boastful European anti-terrorism organizations. They now need additional snooping powers???? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH

"Pry-into-your-private-life" liberals doing what liberals do best. Oh yes, and the liberals will decide what ALL YOUR PRIVATE BROWSING HISTORY MEANS. They are professionals at telling others how to live their lives.

No Way Jose!

This is certainly par for the course......once they see who I pay online each month....they can take those payments over too.....wish I could sit in an office and think of all these corny ideas....they better start thinking of a way to get all these terrorists and go after them and leave us innocent guys alone!! Hate to bring it up but come on Donald Trump go for it...Make America Great Again !!
Good Day!!

Hmm. Sounds like a bit of collusion here with our lovely UK Home Secretary, the pompous and self-opinionated Teresa May and her infamous "snoopers charter". Wonder if all these people who are allegedly in power and are supposed to represent the views of the populace (which they clearly do NOT!) would object to us mere mortals reading all their private communications and observing what websites THEY visit? I think there would be some rumblings here1

I have frequently heard unaware, complacent, law-abiding citizens flippantly dismiss all this by stating, “well, I am not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide, so what does it matter?” Well it matters on many counts: You may be doing nothing wrong now but what if laws change and the everyday things you are doing now become unlawful? What if you are known to read ‘unacceptable’ thought-provoking or anti-establishment literature? We are already not too far from the position where having a difference of opinion to the ruling authority is akin to being a terrorist – ‘home-grown’ or otherwise. And if a stranger stalked you or stole your private details, you would feel violated and you would want something done about it. The notion that privacy does not matter if one has nothing to hide, implies that shame is the only reason anyone would want privacy. Privacy is necessary because individuals and institutions do not act in the best interest of others or society in general when in possession of others’ data. For example, people keep their PIN numbers private, not because they are ashamed of them, but because of what thieves can do with them. Evidently, these carefree folk have bought into the lie that surveillance is all for their protection, but it is also about control and the populace’s decreasing capacity to oppose the increasing power of the State. We are being ruled, not represented. It is a threat to democracy or, rather, to the illusion that democracy actually exists or even works.
Knowing they are being watched curtails people’s personal exploration and broadening of knowledge because people will (and do) limit what they will search for online for fear of the consequences. Fear reduces the likelihood of people wanting to speak their mind, to protest or of even being aware that there is something that requires protesting against.

To solve most of the FED's reach inro all areas will require a Conctututionsl Convention where we set ALL Potilicisns to a 2 term limit of 4 years each (lifetime)! No more career Politicians! Then they must live under & be subject to all laws & regulations & lifetime benefits ie SS like all citizens do now!

Bob you could commemnt as to what is going to happen when FED's figure out just how many Ancestry DNA's the Mornons are holding! Only Fools use this to find their roots!

As stated, that law would be unacceptable to me. If the FBI or any authorized government agency is looking at my records, then I have the right to know they are doing it. Period. They should not be permitted to restrain companies from telling the customer that their records are being reviewed and by whom. I say, go ahead and look, but I want to know who is doing the looking.

Look at the damage J. Edgar Hoover did with his access to personal secrets just using illegal wiretaps and other intrusions. His was a hypocritical power trip with total disregard for the Constitution. Look it up. Don't mess with my privacy even if I'm not doing anything wrong. Do you know how hard it is to prove your innocence?

In the 1950’s I read Orwell’s 1984. At the time we joked about “Big Brother Is Watching YOU”. Our attitude: it is double most un-able (impossible) to happen here.
In the 1960’s I saw what, at the time, was high-tech monitoring equipment, and I began to think differently.
Over the next 30 years I watched technology move closer to Orwell’s description. That, coupled with government and society changes, convinced me that Orwell only got the date wrong.
When Digi-cams came out, people put them in and around their homes broadcasting their private lives. Now they’re part of home security systems. People carry high quality recording and tracking devices everywhere. Almost anywhere you go in town can (and often is) being recorded by someone. Even in the country, satellites can track you.
Movement toward an Orwellian state was like a rowboat; in the past 10 years it’s upgraded to a speedboat. Even the government uses technology to accelerate its invasion of our ‘private’ lives at a much faster pace. When technology/encryption blocks the government, it seeks ‘legal’ means to monitor ‘persons of interest’. (Only the government decides who these people are – and that frequently changes.)
The ‘War on terrorism’ provided Orwell’s unknown country which occasionally made attacks – killing someone outspoken against the government, but then declared a hero. (Note that for decades people outspoken against our government policy have died in unfortunate accidents or under suspicious circumstances. Also, some groups take credit for individual acts of terrorism/mass killings when they aren’t involved. Their being blamed for what our own government does naturally follows.)
As for the two groups, the privileged class will be those who embrace mobile devices, smart equipment and such. The outcasts will be those who, like me, don’t want them.
From my perspective, the stage is nearly set. We have a scapegoat for acts of violence, we are polarizing toward a two-class society, and only a few more laws or executive orders (like this one) are needed. The opposing tech giants and privacy advocates will be declared enemies of the state or meet with some catastrophe.
When will we reach the Orwellian State? I don’t know. However, I do believe it is much closer than most people realize.

I'm not sure why the "I don't have anything to hide" argument ignores a large part of what privacy is. It's PRIVATE. Not shared with the world at large.

Our society has, traditionally, found that some things are private, not for public consumption. That doesn't mean they're illegal acts, or signs that we are bad people, but just things that we as a society, find helpful and more comfortable to keep private.

As a kid's book once noted, everybody poops. It's biology. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's certainly not a criminal act. And yet - I close the bathroom door every time I use the toilet. Don't you?

This is not a right/left issue. Both sides have equally initiated actions to invade our privacy.

And Google, Apple, and Microsoft are just as bad quietly collecting information on us.

Hi Bob, hi all! Hot topic, I could not help but read all the comments. I entirely agree that the government is stuffing its collective nose where it shouldn't. Being Canadian though, I'm looking at this from here, yet "here" is really not a geographical concept anymore in this day and age of the Internet. It's all global, and a lot of the stuff we do "here" on the Internet actually transits through servers in the United States. Therefore, laws impacting the U.S. are going to have repercussions globally whether we want it or not. Guys, I'm thinking about going back to stamps. Soon...!

I sick and tired of being sick and tired of IDIOTS wanting to know everything about everybody. The Gov. is going to get away with this s$#t if WE don't raise enough hell. Me, personally, am gonna raise all the hell my Grandpa taught my how to. Yell, scream and holler loud enough and tell them bastards they can go soak their heads in a bucket of pig poop.
The point is - yell, scream and holler to them that 'might' listen. Your elected officials.

Yell all you want. Write and complain to Congress until your pen runs out of ink, and you lose your voice. The EFF is impotent.

The FBI, CIA, NSA, and other data-hoarders will do what they want, when they want, and to whomever they want, Constitution be damned. Laws, regulations, courts? Please. As Snowden revealed, those organizations pretend to be lawful, but aren't. Those in Congress are just enablers. Welcome to the New World Order; we are all just pawns in the game.