This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Head of Congressional Intelligence Committee: “You Can’t Have Your Privacy Violated If You Don’t KNOW Your Privacy Is Violated”
The chair of the House Intelligence Committee – Mike Rogers – said yesterday in an NSA spying hearing which he led that there is no right to privacy in America.
Constitutional expert Stephen I. Vladeck – Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law – disagreed.
Here’s the exchange:
Rogers: I would argue the fact that we haven’t had any complaints come forward with any specificity arguing that their privacy has been violated, clearly indicates, in ten years, clearly indicates that something must be doing right. Somebody must be doing something exactly right.
Vladeck: But who would be complaining?
Rogers: Somebody who’s privacy was violated. You can’t have your privacy violated if you don’t know your privacy is violated.
Vladeck: I disagree with that. If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a noise whether you’re there to see it or not.
Rogers: Well that’s a new interesting standard in the law. We’re going to have this conversation… but we’re going to have wine, because that’s going to get a lot more interesting…
What Rogers is really saying is that the government has the right to spy on everyone so long as it doesn’t get caught doing so.
How’s that different from arguing that it’s okay for a thief to takes $100 from your bank account as long as you don’t notice that the money is missing? Or that it’s okay to rape a woman while she’s passed out so long as she doesn’t realize what happened?
That’s beyond ridiculous.
It flies in the face of more than 200 years of American law. In fact, experts say that the NSA spying program is wildly illegal, and is exactly the kind of thing which King George imposed on the American colonists … which led to the Revolutionary War.
BONUS:
How to Help Protect Yourself from Fukushima Radiation
- advertisements -


The rulers are insane. Why do we obey them?
Because they have guns, and people ready to use those guns in the name of 'authority', to back the "Rule of Law".
<And as soon as our guns are gone they will have no more worries about using theirs.>
You should really be asking "The rulers are insane. Why do the police and military obey them"?
keep droning on like that and they'll send you one
good to see you
Once again Cog, you manage to get to the nubliness of an issue.
What more can be said that isn't hot air?
Because FRNs are still exchangeable for goods and services.
Gov checks start bouncing and all bets are off.
pods
Edwards (2013, in press) "When the hearing turned to questioning, however, the APA’s stance on informed consent seemed to dilute his earlier statements. Present during questioning were Members of the Special Inquiry, House Government Operations Committee including Cornelius E. Gallagher (D-N. J.), Chairman, Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D-N.Y.), Frank Horton (R-N. Y.), and for this investigation on invasion of privacy, Henry S. Reuss (D-Wis) and Norman Cornish, Chief of Special Inquiry, House Committee on Government Operations. The transcript in which Arthur Brayfield offered testimony began on page 413,
MR. GALLAGHER: Thank you very much, Doctor. * * * I would like to say, Doctor, that I don't know what you consider a widespread abuse or would consider a widespread abuse of personality testing.
DR. BRAYFIELD: Sir, I would consider that in the instance that a single employee of the Federal Government is in some substantial way damaged personally through the use of personality tests, that is a very serious matter and warrants our immediate concern.
MR. GALLAGHER: That was the concern of this Subcommittee. How widespread or what numbers would indicate widespread use would all differ … We have never been opposed to psychological testing per se. We have been strongly opposed to the use of personality testing as a way … to determine how a person might think at some future date … this is wrong … This has been the very purpose of this inquiry, not to impede science … but … to accelerate it properly so that the beneficiaries of scientific research will … benefit … rather than be condemned to a status of nonperson … Mr. Cornish?
MR. CORNISH: Dr. Brayfield, how do you feel about the question of consent given to taking a personality test which is possibly intrusive? I am talking about
the situation outside the clinical situation.
DR. BRAYFIELD: This is the research situation?
MR. CORNISH: Yes. I know the association, for example, has given great time and consideration to the question of confidentiality in testing, and I think
rightly so. But has the association really directed itself to the issue of consent as well as confidentiality?
DR. BRAYFIELD: I wish there were a simple response. If there were, the problem would probably not be very significant. The fact that there is no simple response does indeed indirectly attest to the significance of the question…. In most instances a responsible investigator would either in a general way or in a specific way address himself to the question of consent. Partly you have an age
factor, a maturity factor as influencing your decision. As I suggested, you have the question of the significance of the possible discovery of information or new
knowledge to be obtained. You are really posing one of the real judgmental tests that any investigator is faced with, and interestingly, although there is no consent
involved, you have some highly related question in the use of animals which is always of great concern to research people."
Arthur, WTF? Seriously? informed consent with animals? Are you avoiding the question or are you taking drugs? lol
In Edwards (2013; in press) "In 1965, a combination of events culminated in House and Senate inquiries into complaints about invasions of privacy and psychological testing. Surveillance technology became increasingly more sophisticated after WWII, several popular non-fiction books such as The Naked Society raised awareness of this technology, and government employees had begun to complain to congressional representatives and senators about lost employment opportunities or dismissals for refusing to answer intimate questions about sexual or religious thoughts (e.g., Ervin, 1965). The congressional hearings on invasions of privacy began to hone in on informed consent because it was not possible to know what psychologists, other test administrators, or anyone with access to employee records might infer from the answers to the questions (e.g. Westin, 1966). In the Columbia Law Review Ruebhausen & Brim (1966, p. 1197), for example, argued the issue of privacy and personality tests emerged “if the individual respondent does not participate willingly, or if he participates without knowledge of the information being elicited from him, or without an understanding of the purposes for which such information will be used.”
Westin (1966, p. 1014) defined psychological surveillance below,
Psychological surveillance encompasses scientific techniques which seek to extract information from an individual that he does not want to reveal, or does not know he is revealing, or is led to reveal without a mature awareness of its significance for his privacy. Public attention in recent years has focused on two main types of psychological surveillance, the polygraph and personality testing."
In every term of intellectual logic, Mr Rogers is a snake oil salesman. His logic is deflection and besides, I believe that many people have complained about the invasion of the government.
It is hard to believe (well, maybe not) that persons of such demented state of mind could and would spy on their fellow man. Why?
Desperation | Denial | Devolution | Degeneration | Dogma
And, by blindly following this course of means, that is to say, imposing forcefully total surveillance on all people who by definition, are then defined as victims, Mr Rogers is acting out the precise same crime that a Bengali or Chinese medical persons does when he sneaks into your hotel room while you sleep and removes some internal organs that he wants to sell without your permission. (This happens to be a monstrously large business in the Tourist industries, but nobody does anything about it because it is so lucrative and necessary for decrepid maniacal monsters without enough oxygen in the brains and besides, they leave a thank you message on your bedside table with some advice that you should see a doctor when you awaken). In other words, you don't know about it, unless...
Mr. Rogers masturbates himself with a limp dick; a much larger phenomen than himself, but of identical condition.
The USA is doomed with people like this in government where I am sure from observation that such mental constructs are ubiquitous and pervasive.
Ho hum
Colonel "Bat" Guano: I think you're some kind of deviated prevert. I think General Ripper found out about your preversion, and that you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts. Now MOVE!
Why would you spy on your fellow man? Because you're a fucking PREVERT!!! And your limp masturbation analogy perfectly sums up the current crop of oppressors and their minions, who will be brushed aside by the Army of the Righteous when the time comes.
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/michael-j-mike-rogers-is-a-tr...
apparently denying that the nsa wasn't listening to american's phone calls is not enough for this bastard.... someone in michigan has some explaining to do in terms of why this man hasn't paid for his treason
nice avatar, Aquarius. /sarc
i read something profound the other night. it went something like this:
"We believe our rights and liberties are guaranteed by constitutions, which are documents written by men. Therefore, it must stand to reason that those same rights and liberties can be deprived of us by new documents written by men."
stop placing your trust in men and documents written by men. George Bush was correct; the Constitution IS just a goddamn piece of paper, for it violates His Law. furthermore, the Constitution is an arrangement BETWEEN THE STATES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
here's the key words:
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names
the CONstitution does not apply to us. WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
our rights and liberties are DIVINELY bestowed upon us. NO MAN has the right to tell another what to do.
The Constitution declares certain rights are natural rights and the paper asserts the newly constituted govt. CANNOT abrogate those rights.
The Constitution confers no rights, they exist simply by you existing. A line that can't be crossed.
Natural Rights or Divinely granted is an entirely personal viewpoint and is not germane to the law.
the CONstitution declares no such thing.
perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence.
"that's just nitpicking isn't it?" - N. Tufnel
,
KID "Mom, what's the difference between 1965 and 2013?"
MOM "Well, back then the government and the American Psychological Association pretended to care about privacy and constitutional rights. Now no one does."
KID Now no one cares? but they pretend to care?
MOM:Hmm, that's a goooood question. You get a cookie. No one cares OR pretends to care. Get it?
KID Yeeees. I think so. Thanks Mom.
MOM. You are SO welcome little man. Now, go spend millions of hours on the internet. Tell the universe I said hi.
"you cannot have privacy violated if don't know privacy is violated"
... thus is reasoning for creepy guy after administer roofie of flunitrazepam to sleeping date. Is AmeriKa governing class really to be such sociopath!?
@Boris - +1 from me. You beat me to the punch on this one. Your question - "Is AmeriKa governing class really to be such sociopath!?" merits an answer. Unfortunately the entire governing class are sociopaths. I believe with few exceptions that every politician, at least on the federal level, is clinically a narcissist or sociopath or psychopath. Or combination thereof. What this guy said in a moment of candor reflects the opinion of just about every congressman and senator.
Follow question of obvious...
Why is any citizenry elect of Sociopath!?
and for AmeriKa...
Why twice time?
"Why is any citizenry elect of Sociopath!?"
Because, to quote HL Mencken -"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental - men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
"the White House will be adorned by a downright moron"
HL Mencken is prophet fulfilled!
Because the only names on the ballot are:
Sociapath A (R);
Sociopath B (D); and
Sociopatth C (Ind).
Lots of "choice," right?
So put Sociopath A (D) in White House and fill Congress of Sociopath B (R) to keep sociopath class busy fight each other. Every 4 year, alternate to keep fun and exciting.
yes,
it's just like college girls who pass out and get raped
Who are these goddamned psychos?
Why are they running my country?
And why am I putting up with it?
Davy if they are passed out it is not rape. Congressman not congresswomen says so. I wish I had known this when I was in college. /s
Ask Eritrea.......http://www.raimoq.com/eritrea-newcomer-to-global-mining/
TIGRAY APARTHIED @ErythreanSea 7m
@fcardoza696 @ri_kh Actually, All roads lead to US 70yrs policy, gambling with ERITREAN BLOOD to sabotage the region & conquer the RED SEA.
NOTICE TO ZH'ers: Eritrea has been in the 'fight' from the beginning.
Da Boris, Da. Ruling klass lack morals and are not having respect for citizen klass. Rulers having large boners for fucking drugged citizen klass.
Da. They remind me of the Third Reich during its ascendency, and they take their marching orders from the same money powers.
Very amusing name and schtick you' ve got there, Boris :-)
"you cannot have privacy violated if don't know privacy is violated"
Just when you think you have heard all the ludicrous, asinine, nonesensical statements that could come out of the mouth of a human being, out comes yet another.
The argument that something isn't wrong so long as you don't know about it, is so far removed from logic, words fail...
Boris is nostalgia for double-speak euphemism of slight nervous big government, when still cannot utter to naked evil of state, when government is still to slight fear of citizenry. Of course, for awake citizenry, euphemism is offense, but is know game finally up when state can say thing like, "you cannot have privacy violate if don't know privacy is violate", without eye blink.
With flaxen cord, strand and strand, devil is bind you up, but day is come when go to scratch nose and cannot move.