Having lived through 9/11, I really didn’t want to go there with the FISA/Patriot Act issues because first, I feel the good outweighs the bad when it comes to the security of our country where millions of lives can be at stake and second, these implements are designed with terrorist, terrorism and foreign governments and their agents in mind and the average citizen hardly fits that description.

I don’t think that Quest’s Brycing activities or the way he brushes his teeth would come under the sights of the National Security Agency (NSA) and that he will be carted off under violation of FISA/Patriot Act.

On the other hand, if Quest brought attention unto himself for terrorist activity (bomb building, gun running, cavorting with known terrorists and the like), then I would say se la vi, farewell and goodbye

As far as the telephone companies and them allowing the government access with impunity, there again it falls under the guise of suspected individuals not just anyone at whim for no reason at all.

I’m not saying that these devices don’t need constant oversight and updating to further protect our citizen’s 4th amendment rights. The one thing that 9/11 taught us is that our national security system in place at that time was flawed. The Patriot Act is an effort towards the improvement of that system which must continually evolve and be refined to do its job and protect our citizen’s welfare and constitutional rights.

This AP article from Sweden does not imply that this eavesdropping is being selective about who their spying on and in that regard is a scary scenario.

“It gives Sweden's National Defense Radio Establishment, or FRA, the right to scan ALL international phone calls, e-mails and faxes without a court order as of January.” (italics provided by me)

Sweden's Defense Minister Sten Tolgfors said “data regarding individuals will be destroyed unless it is directly relevant to intelligence activities.”

As for the U.K. and all that CCTV activity on public streets, I find that to be most intrusive in a more personal nature and totally non-selective. I watched a television documentary on that particular British issue and they were saying that most Brits go along with it because it offered more police security. I’ve also read that those boroughs with the most CCTVs have the higher crime rates despite all those cameras so it doesn’t make sense to me.

Here in the U.S. they seem to be creeping in more and more in business areas, shopping malls and road intersections. But we also have some activism against them as well. Just the other day I was watching someone fighting a traffic ticket issued by CCTV and they wanted to march the camera into court to be questioned. And since the camera didn’t lend itself well for interrogation the lawyer was opting for a dismissal. I’m quite wary of this same situation happening here in the U.S. and really hope it doesn’t get any worst.