Slashdot Log In
The Privacy Candidate
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jan 28, 2007 07:04 PM
from the right-from-the-left dept.
from the right-from-the-left dept.
Alsee writes "Wired News reports 'electronic civil libertarians' hearts are a-twitter' over US Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton's bold stance on the right to privacy. Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.' Clinton gave a speech last June to the American Constitution Society (text, WMF) in which she addressed electronic surveillance, consumer opt-in vs. opt-out, cyber-security, commercial and government handling of personal data, data offshoring, data leaks, and even genetic discrimination." Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only would it sway my vote, but a positive stance on privacy would damn-near guarantee it. Over the years, the U.S. government has eroded its citizens' rights to the point of absurdity. This latest president has only made a bad situation worse.
There are other issues at stake, of course, but none quite as dear as those that hit close to home. I'm tired of watching my privacy dwindle away, and I want it to stop.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We don't have fixes to welfare or unemployment because we need them as issues to run on. We cannot have some government body fixing itself out of a job either. At best we can have numbers that are acceptable to some but not others. And this it the reason that it will get worse.
Some politician's main platform stands on continuously fixing the existing issues of what seem
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Why I'm voting against Hillary: she is Anti-Gun, pure & simple. without a strong 2nd Amendment, the other "rights" are just words on paper that can be ignored as the powers-that-be wish. With a strong 2nd Amendment, they have to at least consider just how much they afford to piss us off.
It's not much, but it's something.
Parent
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hillary's record from ontheissues.org (Score:5, Informative)
So she supports privacy when it suits her agenda, just like everyone else in DC.
Parent
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the fact that she's a senator, and that the senate voted 98-1 in favor of the PATRIOT Act?
Nope, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_l
A healthy distrust of politicians is not FUD nor cynicism but merely realism.
Parent
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Legitimate invasions (Score:4, Informative)
That country invading an ally of yours. George H. W. Bush's invasion of Iraq was legitimate.
Parent
Re:even LGBT benefit from today's laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. If the benefits are for the kids, then they should be categorizing the taxpayers according to who has kids and who doesn't, not by who is (religiously) married and who isn't!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't you think it's rude to watch it so closely?
Might guarnatee my vote too... (Score:5, Interesting)
For a presidential candidate, their stand on privacy really doesn't matter, just like their stand on a whole host of other things that Congress gets to determine doesn't matter.
Now, a stand on privacy is not to be confused with a stand on constitutional rights. Whether mailling lists are opt-in or not, or what kind of opt-in they have to be, isn't a constitutional issue. But having a president who believes being president doesn't give them the right to listen to my phone calls, or detain me without trial, is DEFINITELY a constitutional issue.
So, having a stand on privacy is a non-issue for me. If you want to grab my attention, promise to recind every invasive executive order from the Bush presidency. Promise to avoid signing statements. Promise to institute executive orders that prohibit you and future presidents and their respective executive branches from taking the same liberties with our liberties as this one has.
Taking a stand on who can see my credit report is a cop-out when the issue of when, and if, I get to see a lawyer is on the table.
Parent
Re:Might guarnatee my vote too... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you underestimate the power of the executive. While it's technically true that Congress passes legislation, it's also true that the President holds nearly equal sway. While he can't introduce legislation himself, he need only present it to a willing accomplice for it to make its way to the floor. Deals are often made between the executive and legislative branches, where one side will agree to pass Bill A in exchange for the passage/inclusion of Bill/Rider B. Of course, when the same party controls both houses, as we saw for the past 6 years, the executive can essentially dictate the agenda, and any detractors risk party ostracism, which could ultimately mean career suicide. (Fortunately, following the party line turned out to be career suicide for many candidates -- although that sets the stage for the pendulum to swing back the other way, perhaps sooner than the Democrats would prefer). The only time the President's agenda doesn't much matter is when the Congress overwhelmingly disagrees, and in more cases than not, that merely results in deadlock.
Aside from explicit powers, the President controls the bully pulpit, which means he can and does set the topic of public discussion. Once voters are talking about an issue, Congress will often have to act or risk losing face.
Granted, your point was that other issues are more pressing to you, and more relevant to the envisioned role of the office, but the power of the President to set the legislative agenda is not insignificant.
Parent
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a presidential candidate. They have almost no domestic power; they can't make law, and they can't do a whole lot to stop law from passing unless it was marginal in the first place. The most important factor of a president's stance is the foreign policy stance, because there, as Bush has demonstrated, they have a lot of discretion and they can, again as Bush has demonstrated, make quite a mess. They can break the law, of course (again as Bush has demonstrated) but then again, so can anyone in the chain of command that leads to the pawn with the inductive tap, the capacitive sensor, or the digital network access. As far as the law of the land goes, it's your congresscritters and senators you need to think about.
That's not to say that I'm not happy with the stated position; I am. I'm also very much a proponent of universal healthcare, and she's demonstrated at least once that she favored it, at least at the time. Hopefully, she'll stick with that, but again, congress is where these things matter the most, and those views can't be selected "all at once." They are of course selected by lobbyists and not voters, anyway, and between insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and lawyers, we won't be getting universal healthcare no matter if it was the raving, foaming at the mouth single issue for a presidential candidate.
Parent
Re: they can't make law (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Don't be fooled by Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Don't be fooled by Bush (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Any examples in mind? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
yesno (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, sure I --
*bzzzt!*
Ouch! Er... I mean, no, no I wouldn't.
Meaning what one says... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was the American Constitution Society after all...
Re:Meaning what one says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in most places, you are REQUIRED to have some form of valid ID. All a national ID has to do is identify you. The drivers license shouldn't be a primary identification, it should be a license to operate a motor vehicle. A social security number shouldn't be a central identification tool, it should be a Social Security Administration record. I'd rather have some national ID number associated with me universally than either my drivers license (which can impact my insurance premium and my DMV record if abused) or my SSN (which is tied to my receipt of money). A national ID, like a passport, has no direct ties to my financial information, health information, or driving record. The NID can cross-reference all of the other numbers (that is, I should be able to use an NID to verify that a savings account is mine, but should not be able to access said account solely with that number). If used effectively, some of the national ID proposals would actually protect personal privacy more than the current system.
As far as being forced to provide it, you're again falling into the trap of MISUSE. The existence of the ID itself has nothing to do with what sort of use is acceptable. Law enforcement currently forces you to provide a drivers license or state ID--a national ID doesn't make their job any easier, and refusal to provide one isn't any better or worse than it is now.
Parent
What I wonder is (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ethanol's neat," Clinton says to corn growers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh-huh. Tell me what she says at the Society for People Unreasonably Afraid That Their Children Are Going To Die in Terrorist Attacks, and then we'll decide if she gets points for this.
Re:"Ethanol's neat," Clinton says to corn growers. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Hillary =! privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong way of thinking, but a good start (Score:4, Interesting)
However, a stance against personal privacy will strongly sway me against you. Fortunately for Hillary and other pro-privacy advocates, many candidates are easy to admit they'd spy, loot, and plunder in the name of "the children".
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
In Australia we have a preferential voting system which I believe empowers voters to rank candidates - hopefully by policy (possibly in descending order of evil *grin*) - but we do have compulsory voting: the merits of which are debatable.
In fact, they often reduce our federal elections to a one-policy debate: economics. Compulsory voting with the threat of higher interest rates under the potential leadership of the opposition arguably scares the politically unmotivated or uneducated to vote with this threat in mind.
As Bill Hicks once said, "There are more important things to vote with than your wallet."
Parent
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Her stance on video games isn't just about video games. It shows she believes that I need protecting from myself, and that I am incapable of protecting my children from video games. It shows that she places these values above free speech. It shows that she is quick to jump on the "Think of the children!" bandwagon, regardless of any actual evidence or logic.
Her belief that she knows better than I do what's good for me is the big reason I don't want to vote for her (though I might, depending who the opponent is -- she'd be better than Bush, of that I'm certain). Her stance on video games is just one example of this.
Parent
Hilary, Hilary, Hilary... (Score:3, Informative)
So, um, no. I don't think I'd vote for her regardless of what her stance of privacy is.
This would be nice, were it not Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, you may say that this is not germane to the privacy issue. But it is, because it shows that Hillary will say anything, at any time, to acquire and hold power. The value of her promises is null. The value of her insight is null. The value of her candidacy is negative, because it is most likely going to give the Presidency to those she claims to fight, while mimicking as closely as possible.
I only know (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I only know (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
her idea of privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
NORML (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary? Is this just going to be about electronic surveillance and security of digital information repositories?
Or are you going to tackle the larger issue of protecting personal activities in private spaces.
Am I the only one.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, I'm posting this over a wifi connection that I perceive to be secure, using a name and password that I believe is uncompromised...
Then again, I am using a cantenna to connect to a router that is perceived to be secure from the viewpoint of the guy providing me with free bandwidth, shared iTunes, and an OS with remote support enabled, and the 'guest' account allowed to be part of the 'everyone' group...
Not hers (Score:5, Insightful)
Not hers. She's a US Senator, former First Lady, and the democratic front-runner for the presidential nomination in 2008. She's been in the public eye for years, she's wielded real power for years, is perhaps the most influential woman in the US after Oprah (seriously...); and yet our privacy has continued to be diminished on her watch without so much as a peep. You apparently have to go back to a talk she gave to the American Constitution Society to even know what her stance on personal privacy is, and I had to go to Wikipedia to find out who they are. Where's the public outrage if you care about privacy so much, Hillary? Lord knows you don't have a hard time getting in front of a TV camera with a chance to express it.
Will I support a candidate who's serious about protecting personal privacy? Hell yes. It's the most important issue I can think of. Hillary Clinton isn't that person, and neither is any other mainstream candidate. Pretty fucking sad.
"Right to privacy" (Score:4, Insightful)
This "right to privacy" does not apply to personal information out there on the internet. There might be laws protecting some aspects of this information, but it isn't a constitutional thing.
Clinton knows this. Non-lawyer tech geeks don't know this. She's using this lack of knowledge about what the legal term "right to privacy" means, intentionally allowing techies to confuse it with their concept of right to privacy, trying to attract votes.
Don't be fooled. The right to have information about yourself be private is purely statutory (without such a statute, there is no such right). This is not a constitutional right. It is fleeting. Don't let Clinton convince you that judges would extend this "right to privacy" to personal information (the judges know better, just like Clinton does).
Please try to remember... (Score:5, Informative)
She might be making noises about the "right to privacy," right now, but please try and remember that when Jack Thompson and the other usual suspects were screeching and crying about violence in video games, she supported that, too. She tries to determine which way the wind is blowing, and when she suspects that she has, then jumps on what she feels is the dominant voter bandwagon at any given point in time. But she is not the archetypical Slashbot's friend...or really anyone else's, for that matter.
Re:Please try to remember... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd say if she were serving the wants of the people, that's significantly better than many, many politicians that server the wants of themselves. It's a strange idea, I know, but you do want your policymakers to listen to the will of the people and support it, and you'd like them to do that even when it is at odds with their own personal belief, if a sufficient majority of the nation wishes a particular change.
I guess what you see is a bad thing, is actually a good thing in my book. Do you want your leader's vote to be for sale to the most powerful lobby, or would you rather it be for sale to the public opinion of the majority? The question isn't whether her opinion can be swayed. The question is who can do it. The point of her stance on Iraq is she and every other member of congress was LIED TO, and made their decisions based on LIES. People actually criticize our policy makers when they do an about face after realizing they were lied to. That's pretty sad.
Parent
Ron Paul? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ron Paul? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think they'll try anything they can think of to keep him out of any potential debates. It would be intersting to see. As far as I know he is the only guy running who opposed the war in iraq, is anti
patriot act/ realid act, supports gun rights, and has consistently voted against pork.
Hell I'd just love to see a debate between him and the flunkies the GOP is running.
I've never voted for a Rep, but I'd vote for him in a minute.
Parent
Yeah, but where does she... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right to privacy (Score:5, Funny)
Did anybody read this? (Score:5, Informative)
There's nothing new in the speech. She talks a lot about data breaches. Those are devastating, sure, but they're hardly an "issue." Being against data breaches offends no constituency (who *isn't* against them?) -- it's like being "tough on crime." She seems to be against a lot of things that nobody is for.
However, she spends very little time on what most of us think of when we talk about "privacy" -- that is, the government's prohibition, under the fourth amendment, against searching us without probable cause, and without a warrant. In fact, she comes to the conclusion that the warrantless searches the Bush administration are doing are probably fine. She believes in the same odious calculation that defines rights and security as mutually exclusive constraints, that have to be "balanced."
Rather, she only takes Bush to task for not letting congress in on the action. That is, had only Bush asked congress for "authorization" -- which would surely have been forthcoming -- everything would have been okay. "Let is in on the action," she seems to say, "and we'll make sure you get the warrants so your policies will be easier to sell to the masses." Instead of real criticism of a policy that's both illegal and that actually makes us less safe [schneier.com], we get criticism over tactics, and parochial self-interest.
The title and blurb for this are completely misleading.
Re:Clinton is a joke and a liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Your attitude is a real threat to democracy, and stupid, and self-fulfilling. Thank you for doing your part in killing honest political and social discourse on the issues that matter. Yes, such discourse is difficult and tiring. It involves questioning whether Clinton was, as another poster put it, preaching to the choir or actually serious. But this discourse is the core political process of democracy. As long as you don't actively participate in it and try to get others engaged as well you have no right whatsoever to complain about the state of politics.
Parent
You should not have looked! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent