... no one forces you to enter credit-card information on Home Depot’s Web site, or to let Facebook track every purchase you make on Amazon—whereas Prism, the N.S.A.’s top-secret program for mining e-mails, videos, chats, and other online communications, is not. Markets involve choice; laws do not. Being a consumer is discretionary; being a citizen isn’t. But Prism, for all its breathtaking reach and intrusiveness, is less creepy to me than all the trillions of bits of information that commercial companies have stored up on all of us, gathered through a sophisticated mix of temptations, deceptions, default settings, carelessness, and sheer market power. It’s sinister when Big Brother is watching you, but it’s even more sinister when Big Brother is you, sharing. Prism is designed to prevent terror attacks on Americans. Advertising algorithms are designed to increase Google’s and Facebook’s profits. Which involves more of a public benefit? Between career officials at the N.S.A. and marketing managers at social-media companies, I trust the former more than the latter to maintain my privacy and use the information they have on me with maximum restraint.

Yep.

I'm not happy about the vast amounts of data corporations collect on people. I don't understand why people willingly participate. I've taken multiple steps to limit the amount of information I give to corporations. But even if corporations have more information than the government I worry less about corporate surveillance than government surveillance. The purposes and the use of that data is so different that corporate surveillance worries me less.

I'd like to use the ripper mccord situation as an illustration. Its not the best example but many of us know him from TPM and have had varying degrees of interaction with him. I hope people can look beyond the details of the case to see the broader implications.

Ripper was alleged to have started a fire in a politicians office. Google might scan his g-mail account and based on some key words put up ads for lighter fluid and matches. The NSA could declare this an act of terrorism, after all he is alleged to have started a fire in a politician's office, and scan his phone records and e-mail. I know some people at TPM were engaged in private communication with each other. The NSA now has those phone numbers and e-mail addresses and now you're part of the investigation.

Back in those days there was a fund raiser to send a couple of people to congress for the health care hearings. If my memory serves correctly one of those people was ripper. Now there's evidence from your bank records of you contributing to ripper's cause. Of course you say it was to send him to the health care hearing, but its suspicious activity and the investigation focuses in on you as a possible co-conspirator. Even if you're immediately cleared just being called in for questioning can have a large negative impact on your life.

I know, you're saying this was just a petty act of vandalism. Yes, I agree. But perfectly legal environmental groups have been designated eco-terrorists as well as peace activist groups engaged in civil disobedience  These groups have been spied on, investigated, and infiltrated. Even if the group is perfectly innocent it just takes one stupid member, acting totally on their own, to trigger an investigation that can sweep up innocents.

http://abcnews.go.com/News/Blotter/fbi-spied-peta-greenpeace-anti-war-ac...

The FBI improperly targeted Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and two antiwar groups in domestic terrorism investigations between 2001 and 2006, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice said in a report released today.

The IG found there was "little or no basis" for the terror investigations, and that they were "unreasonable and inconsistent with FBI policy."

At least two of the investigations resulted in innocent people being placed on the domestic terror watch list for years, and one resulted in FBI Director Robert Mueller providing Congress with "inaccurate and misleading information," according to the report.

The investigation of the Merton Center began with a "make work" assignment for a FBI agent on a "slow day," the report said.

The Catholic Worker was investigated under the "Acts of Terrorism" classification after some of its members trespassed on a military facility and staged a peaceful protest.

I watched a news program on PBS about these and other investigations at the time. One of the groups targeted was a bunch of middle aged and old Quakers. What would google do when it scanned the members data? Probably insert an ad for Quaker Oats and other General Mills products. The government might put you on a no fly list.

Marijuana is still illegal. Why should I care, as Wolrich said, I lead a boring life. I don't smoke pot, I don't even drink alcohol more then 3 or 4 times a year. I was a hard drinking moderate drug user as a young man but now that I'm a cranky old fart I'm practically a teatotaler. But nany groups have members that still smoke pot, even some old Quakers, And I don't want to see activism I agree with inhibited by our inane drug laws. Especially when the information is detected by spurious or illegal investigations.

"But smoking pot is illegal," you say, :"they should just obey the law." Ok, well sexy talk on the phone to your wife or lover is legal.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/09/nsa_eavesdrop_americans_in_baghdad/

The whistle blowers told ABC News that intercept officers listened to the personal conversations of hundreds of Americans "who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism" calling from satellite phones in Baghdad's Green Zone.

The (sadly) unsurprising accusations run contrary to the Bush Administration's insistence that it only eavesdrops on those with links to Al Qaeda unless it first obtains judicial approval.

Former Navy Arab linguist David Faulk told ABC that he and other NSA workers would swap intimate phone calls for entertainment.

Faulk described he would be told, "Hey, check this out, there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy.'"

US Army Reserves Arab linguist Adrienne Kinne said NSA officers insisted operators continued monitoring conversations identified in their systems as belonging to humanitarian aid organizations such as the International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders.

You really think that information wouldn't be used to coerce, intimidate or embarrass someone in and environmental group or peace organization if it was part of a terrorism investigation? But why should I care? I'm not into phone sex.

Some people are really into anal sex. The corporations with that data use it to put up an ad for KY jelly. But how would you like it if your porn searches "accidentally" slip out during an investigation of the "terrorist" environmental group you're a member of? What would you do or say when questioned by law enforcement if they showed you your porn data and then assured you that they would never, ever, under any circumstances release that. Cross my heart and hope to die.

Things like this have happened. Now maybe you say, well that was Hoover  and he was a bastard but its all just hunky dory now, I trust Obama. All this nonsense that people have been posting about not trusting Snowden or others but trusting this politician or that one seemed like so much incredible foolishness that I didn't think it merited a response. I don't trust anyone I don't have a personal relationship with, not even the politicians I like. But I guess some people actually trust some politicians they've never met and have no personal knowledge of or relationship with.

So to all you trusting people. Now that that wonderfully trustworthy guy is in change, isn't it time to limit the amount of data the government collects and the size of the surveillance state before one of those worthless untrustworthy politicians take over?