Reply #14: I really want a legal clarification on this. I don't know the answer.

[Peace Patriot]

I would WANT gov't to be RESPONSIVE to public opinon, and to people who are moved enough by something to actively protest or petition. That's one thing--and it would seem to require gov't gathering info on people and their opinions. On the other hand, I wouldn't want the gov't to be putting dossiers together on groups and individuals in order to oppress them, or shut them up. Where is the line drawn? How do you draw the line? Secrecy would be one way to draw the line. Secret dossiers. (Say, big difference between gov't sending a spy to a community issues meeting, and gov't sending someone to speak and answer questions. Both might take down names--but for different purposes, one to be responsive, one to direct black ops against dissenters.)

Is secrecy where the line is drawn?

About the web site spying, is there a difference here, between, a) the NSA (if legally permitted to do so) reviewing web sites to see what people are thinking and saying, in order to formulate policy, or explain policy (a P.R. dept function, say), and b) the NSA tracking down bloggers' or web site managers' identities and starting a secret dossier, for unknown (but inherently suspicious) purposes?

Of course, the Bush junta makes ANYthing like this give one the chills. They could give a crap what public opinion is. (They have Diebold and ES&S.) I'm just wondering what the legal lines are (and also what their defense might be).