Quantcast

Comments about ‘Robert J. Samuelson: Ed Snowden's hidden consequences’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 7 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Northern
Logan, UT

This article is a ridicules slap to the face. I have no social media but to keep up with business and provide one must have email and use a cell phone. I would not have them if I wasn't a business owner. This government needs to follow the laws of the land.

David King
Layton, UT

Here's a question that no NSA sympathizer has been able to give me an answer to. Were it not for Edward Snowden, how would we know about the government's collection of metadata? Every time intelligence officials testified before Congress they denied the existence of such a program. In other words, it took a man breaking the law to find out the NSA was doing things one judge has already ruled unconstitutional. How can a government be "of the people" when a person has t break the law for the rest of us to know that their government is breaking the law?

As far as the comparison between NSA spying and social media use, they're two different issues. There's a big difference between the NSA tracking (without my consent) who I made a phone call to and for how long, and me knowingly posting a photo of the hot dog I had for lunch on Facebook.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Mr. Samuelson completely missed the point? The 4th Amendment GUARANTEES our right to privacy FROM government spying. It is that simple. Our own government does not support the Constitution. If our own government does not support the Constitution, then what becomes of our other guaranteed rights? What becomes of all of our unguaranteed rights?

We are a nation where the people, not the government, make the rules. We limit the power, the authority, the scope of government. The government does not limit our power, our authority or our scope. ALL rights EXCEPT those that we have specifically listed (enumerated) are retained by the people. NO rights, except those that we have specifically listed (enumerated) can be limited by government. In this case, the government not only has ignored our right to privacy (because we have not listed a duty to be spied upon as one assigned to the government) but it has absolutely violated the Constitution by collecting private data without a signed court order from a judge based on probable cause as ABSOLUTELY required by the 4th Amendment.

Mr. Samuelson, as a member of the 4th Estate, you totally blew off your responsibility.

Invisible Hand
Provo, UT

When the IRS and other government agencies used information about who people supported politically to target them, clearly that is a problem. That really happened, although key people plead the 5th and the justice department and Congress refused to do anything about it. I feel like my right to free speech is threatened by this spying. If I get audited, how do I know it's not because government officials don't like what I say on this site? I don't consider political opposition to the current regime to be wrong, but the regime does, therefore I am a potential target of the NSA.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

I find it hillarious and hypocritical that Obama campaigned on repealing the Patriot Act, NSA spying, and the middle east power grabs. Now he defends all 3 and has expanded all 3. Bush never left, as far as I'm concerned, he's still in office wearing Obamas face.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

I know this isn't the popular belief, but actually what Samuelson reports here is pretty much accurate.

Mike Richards.... do a little more studying.... read up on reasonable right to privacy. Anything done in public = you have no reasonable right to privacy there. When you go online, you are entering a public space. I understand most don't understand that. But the internet is just like main street. What you do on the internet, the sites you visit, what you write in what you think are private emails... are all done in a public domain. What you can reasonably expect to be private is rather limited outside of the boundries of your own property.

I thought I had seen somewhere that you were a photographer. As such, I would sure think you would understand the concept as the same principles applies to street photography. Your explicit right to privacy is rather narrow.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments