Dear FRONTLINE,

Perhaps more shocking than the show, at least for me, were the responses and the willingness of some to surrender rights and protections. As for the assertion that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear, I disagree. In order to believe that you have to assume that everyone in government is good and would never do anything wrong --like abuse their power--. It also suggests a willingness to trust completely, not just the current administration but all who come after them.

Saint Louis, Missouri

Dear FRONTLINE,

I watch Frontline regularly, and most of your stories are examples of superb journalism. With this story, however, I am bewildered by some of the weaknesses in the reporting. First, there is assumption that personal privacy protection as specified in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is extended to all our activities and dealings. Much of our business intercourse are a matter of public record. Our taxes, home mortgage, address and all legal dealings are public information free to be accessed by anyone.

Second, the question should have been asked, are our regular business activities such as shopping at a store our private information exclusively. Isn't it also the information of all parties of the transaction, which could include a credit card company and a credit card or check processor, a bank and or finance company. The list of parties could get quite long. Checking into a hotel, taking a cab, and renting a car, are not private activities. When the Constutiton was written, I believe the intention of the framers were to prevent the authorities from physically entering our homes and those areas where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy without a warrant, and then using it unethically against us. We live in a different time with technoligical advances that the writers of the Bill of Rights could not have imaged. The direction your report should have taken was to ask where in all the communications technologies does one have a reasonable expection of privacy, and how is it being violated. One should not have an expectation of privacy taking a very public trip to Las Vagas. Another question could be, were the these 'victims' in this report unreasonably inconvenienced by what the FBI did in Las Vegas? One of the features of your story that was of relevance, in my opinion, regarding privacy was the NSA listening in on private telephone conversation of Americans. This is an area that privacy is expected, traditionally. This should have been the focus of your reporting.

Marcell Robateau
Boston , MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thanks for this insightful, disturbing documentary; it should be a warning to all freedom-loving citizens.

I find disturbing the ignorant partisanship that inevitably filters its way into these educated exchanges. Uninformed comments like "it seems that most of the negativity about this video is from people that don't like Bush" and "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" have no place in this conversation. My advice is to save that sort of bootlicking, partisan cheerleading for "O'Reilly Factor" and other Fox fare. Such inane comments make the educated reader long for a "dittohead" filter to reject these trite posts.

This discussion is not about President Bill Clinton's administration, it is not pro-Democrat -- it isn't even left-wing or liberal-biased. It is a discussion about liberty, privacy, and technocracy. It is an unanswered question that will shape the future of our democracy: How much freedom are we, as Americans, willing to surrender in exchange for increased security within our borders? I, for one, believe there are prescribed limits.

Partisan thinkers forget what is at stake: the fundamental principles of liberty and privacy, both of which are guaranteed by the Constitution. These principles are neither left nor right, Bush nor Clinton. They are the pillars of our government, the keystones to our Constitution. It is our duty as Americans to protect these rights as did our forefathers, many of whom died in the preservation of these sacrosanct tenets of government.

I would add that the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear argument" is nothing more than holier-than-thou one-upmanship. If this viewer learned only one thing from this program, one would hope it would be the criticality of the miscast Las Vegas dragnet. Such mistakes bring to the fore the core question of how we control these tools of technocracy and, within that structure, who serves the role of ombudsman.

One would think a man charged with the defense of this country and its citizenry (and, by extension, its Constitution) would have a better understanding of the issue and a greater zeal for the protection of these civil liberties. I fear this type of thinking is commonplace within the defense and intelligence communities -- indeed, the executive branch as a whole. As a result, checks and balances from the legislative and judicial branches are (and always have been) essential components of our finely crafted government.

Thanks again for bringing this matter to the public airwaves.

R. Jenkins
La Crosse, WI

Dear FRONTLINE,

As lawyer, I was very disappointed by the completely shallow legal analysis this show displayed.

Much, if not all, of the information the FBI "mined" in Las Vegas was simply NOT private. If I go to a hotel, I have no guaranty that my stay there will not be made public. Witnesses may see me register. The hotel may sell my name to a marketing service. My car tags may be photographed in the parking lot. In short, public activities have NEVER been subject to privacy rights, and going to Vegas is certainly a very public activity. If you don't like that, stay in your hovel and don't move about.

I was equally shocked by the lack of any alleged "victims" from the so-called "spying." So the FBI "knows" the names of thousands of people who went to Vegas for New Years in 2003. Big Fat Deal. That and $4.00 will get you a gallon of regular gasoline these days.

Honestly, you people need to give some better thought to your projects. Some Frontline programs are fabulous. This one was a bigger dud than the alleged attack on Vegas in 2003.

Tom Renda
Rockville, Maryland

Dear FRONTLINE,

it seems that most of the negativity about this video is from people that don't like Bush.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11

enough said

Bobby Caruso
Spokane , WA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Kudos to everyone concerned with the program especially Mr. Headrick. It is a public service to every American. Special thanks to the brave and knowledgeable whistle-blowers, privacy rignts advocates and journalists who contributed to the effort. Knowledge of this information about government spying and the processes involved in deceiving the American public is an excellent weapon in the war on terror. Informed and free Americans, living without fear of our own government, are the best deterrent to radicalism of any kind. Thanks very, very much!

Corliss Crabtree
San Antonio, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

How naive can Frontline be? The NSA has been capturing and filtering all electronic communications for decades. Then the story of the honeypot at AT&T. It just happens that the technician "got" a list of equipment in a secure room. I don't think so. It's the old "Hey look over there." Then the comparison to what the Constitution say about personal privacy and someone going to Las Vegas using a credit card to buy a airline ticket, rent a car and hotel room. You give up your privacy to companies when you do these things and no one seems to care, but when the government gets involved to keep people safe everyone has a cow.

Give me a break. Frontline you used to do better stories than this.

Mike Barstow
Barstow, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Why isn't Congress more upset about this? From the program I get the impression that ALL communications are suspect. That would include presidential and congressional communications. If the NSA data mines the governemntal communications, an unscrupulus "miner" (by executive order or on a freelance basis) could find sensetive personal information and effect public policy. It's scary and fundementally undermines democracy. Could you discuss this aspect of the policy in a future show?

Park City, UT

Dear FRONTLINE,

After this posting, I'm think I'm going to throw away my computer.

Will the American Public ever be concerned over this? Can our country ever again retrieve "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Or did we ever had such a moment?

Marc Moody
Honolulu, Hawaii

Dear FRONTLINE,

Excellent piece, as always. I am left wondering, however: Where is the outrage? How many people in this country could even tell you what the Fourth Amendment is, let alone why they should care about it? I am willing to bet that even George Bush had never read the constitution before taking office. If he did, he surely didn't comprehend a word.

Cheryl Graham
Wenatchee, WA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have enjoyed many FRONTLINE specials. For this one, I missed the first few minutes...so I'm not sure if there was an example of how any one (or more) "innocent" individual(s) were adversely affected by this so-called "spying". Personally, I would be upset if I found out the government WASN'T making use of datamines in their homeland security endeavors. When you have a lot of questions (queries, in computer language), and no answers, you have to start somewhere. The approach of the interviewer and this program appears to demonize the people who have been elected and appointed to protect us. SHAME ON YOU!

S. Solomon
West Palm Beach, FL

Dear FRONTLINE,

What is private information? I find it fascinating that people in the this country think that who they call and when they call them is private information. You are using a public utility, paid for with public money. When you send an email through yahoo or some other providers network, that provider owns that information. Private companies sell your personal information everyday, I can find out who own's a house, what taxes they pay, whether they have a mortgage, and what they paid for a house in a matter of minutes online. This information is available because private companies have collected it for much more nefarious purposes that stopping terrorism. Maybe frontline should try doing a story that doesn't blame the bush administration for every ailment the human race faces, past, present and future.

Mark Semkiw
Seatte, WA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Writing from California, I have to wonder if the word terrorist ot Bush will be instantly picked up in San Francisco and passed on via the NSA for analysis. It might be helpful if we used the incredible resource of history and our own constitution to see that the terrorists have already won when we worship at the temple of paranoia, and sacrifice our freedoms to a president acting like an oligarch. How short is the journey from fishing for terror, to fishing for discontent? (NSA go ahead. Add me to your list.)

David Chester
San Diego, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

It's been said that Americans have a habit of seeking technological solutions to moral or political problems. ...

Searching for terrorists using data mining, surveillance, and image recognition technologies sounds like more hi tech solutions to a problem requiring a lot of human work: old-fashioned police and espionage methods.

The terrorist plots that have been thwarted (such as the Millennial Bomber caught at the US-Canada border) and those that could have been thwarted (the Al Qaeda pilot-trainees who raised the suspicions of US flight instructors) were not discovered by supercomputers crunching data, but by aware citizens making judgments.

Has a crime ever been prevented through data mining? Is the money spent on NSA supercomputers better spent on more FBI agents and foreign language specialists? Is the US government becoming too reliant on technological approaches to terrorism prevention? Is America's technological edge contributing to an atrophy of human intelligence capabilities?

John Garry
Los Angeles, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Many people are missing the point from what I am reading here. When a powerful entity gathers unlimited info on people as if all are guilty, then comes the laws against certain type people or political opponents, they are easily rounded up and taken on trains to the special camps. Some of you say oh come on get a grip, but history has shown us just what power hungry people do once they have the tools to take care of the competition. That is why these laws that are being circumvented along with strong elected over site are the real protection from the bigger threat to America than any crazy religious group...unlimited government power. When any leader tells the people that they know best and the laws do not apply to them ( TRUST ME ) that is the time to dig deep into what they are doing because with out a doubt it will be awful.

Salem , OR