🚀 go-pugleaf

On 8/12/92 Dave Pipes x4552 said to All: 


  DP> Nelson.F..Steele@p807.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Nelson F. Steele)
  DP> writes:
  > On 8/10/92 Dave Pipes x4552 said to All:
  > 
  DP> For example: If they did monitor to the extent possible in 1984, why
  DP> would the FBI even have to tap someone to get evidence?  They'd just
  DP> call NSA and get the tapes...
  DP> 
  > In a stunning example of inter-agency cooperation.  NSA monitored
  > Americans in the 60s (Puzzle Palace).  If they're doing it now I think
  > they'd be reluctant to tell anyone else.
  > 
  DP> The previous poster, to whom I replied, painted a picture of a 1984
  DP> style world where the government just does whatever it pleases,
  DP> brutally suppressing the rights of individuals.  I tried to point out
  DP> that things would be very different if that was indeed happening.
  DP> 
  DP> The fact that they did it in the 60's, to a few people, and handed the
  DP> info over does not mean that they do it now.  And remember, there were
  DP> active terrorists in the US in the 60's - surely keeping an eye on
  DP> them was a good thing.  There were actually full scale assaults on
  DP> government facilities on a few occasions, solely for the purpose of
  DP> gaining weapons.  So there are situations where monitoring is wise.
  DP> 
  DP> I repeat - if the information is being abused, we would see some
  DP> evidence of it, sooner or later.  Much as some enjoy the aura of fear
  DP> such assertions create, we are not living in a police state.
  DP> 
  I largely agree.  America is *not* a police state in which individual rights
are "brutally" suppressed - there are still enough of those around.  And that's
not what I intended to suggest.  It is my *opinion* however that when the
government collects intelligence on Americans the goal is political, not public
safety.  I think you are being *very* gentle with the government over such
violations of privacy and law.  What's wrong about the government monitoring
Americans is not "if the information is being abused" but the collection of such
information in the first place.  Finally, as you point out, that they did it in
the past does not mean that they're doing it now, and I hope they're not.