US Congress Committee Talking About Privacy 162
rm007 writes "The US House of Representatives Judicial Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
is holding hearings on the Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security
and approved
the Defense of Privacy Act.
The DHS Privacy Officer hearings are to examine how well the incumbent,
Nuala O'Connor Kelly, is doing and whether the statute creating the
position sufficiently addresses concerns about the handling of personally
identifiable information. This should be worth watching. Wired News has an
article that covers both of these as does GovExec.com, a newsletter for senior Federal employees."
There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, some use amendments to imply one, but it just is not there, and the same amendments can be used to imply such things as a supposed "right to security" which can erode a supposed "right to privacy".
Time for an amendment.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
It is only when government overstepps its boundry does the right of privacy dissapear, and often it is like the frog telling of the ecological disaster to come. Remember Hoover and his FBI? They were the ones who tapped the phones of political groups. And remember Nixon?
Defend your liberty or lose it.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
About the only thing you are really free to do is act in your own home. But even there, if someone can find out that you bought Girls Gone Wild, hand lo
Only Sheep Have No Rights (Score:2)
Although RFIDs will allow stores to track what you buy, that is a trivial abuse of RFIDs compare to what the government can do with them. The real risk is that RFIDs will allow the government to set up the most efficient domestic spying network ever envisioned. Simply by putting scanners on streets the government will be able to tell where you (and everyone else) goes. They will be able to tell who you associa
Re:That is just search and seizure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
---
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Just remember this rule, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
People act for their self benifit, and when they can to help their friends. Look at Bush and the oil industry or Cheney and Halliburton. Cheney will make millions from them when he leaves the white house. The temptation is too great. That is why we need rules in place to protect those in power from abusing the power we give them.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems more and more that in the present day we are heading back into the world you just described.
As you said:
Today you see those freedoms being limited slowly, one peice at a time.
Perhaps we are going to see things turn full circle before they start to get better...
---
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has this idea that the government is there to make the country great. Wrong. The government is there to protect you so you can live your life to your own choosing.
The day has come where YOU are no longer expected to make your country great, you just tell your government to do it for you. Charity, morals, economic power regulation, all of these things have been passed to your lawmakers. Do you think you have more control over these powers in your lawmakers' hands than in your own?
Government is a tool to control power, but the individual action, the individual decision, the individual debate, the individual dollar, the individual volunteer hour... all of these things are tools more powerful than those proxied off to a self-interested, self-perpetuating government.
The problem with government is, it's all or nothing. We either outlaw X or allow X, we take money from group A and give to group B, there are few gray areas.
Government is a sledgehammer and should be used as such and only as such. It might be a good idea to consider making your country great on your own.
At the risk of sounding resoundingly cheesy, I'll end this with a quote:
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
-- H. L. Mencken
power corrupts (Score:3, Insightful)
Power attracts the corruptible.
I wish there were an effective way to draft our government. I worry about the competence issue, and I wonder if it would reduce corruption. Just how honest is the average citizen? If the average citizen were honest, would the drop in corruption balance the presumed drop in competence as a result of drafting government?
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
it's true. (if you believe in such a thing).
In the Bible, in Genesis - the very first three words God says to us is "You are free. . . " (in the context of choosing to eat anything in the garden, except for a certain fruit. . . - the fact that Adam and Eve chose to eat that fruit means - they were TRULY free.)
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
I'm sure England didn't really see it coming either! Well, I guess we know you're out
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Informative)
The framers, and the drafters of the "Bill of Rights" did not want to fall into the trap of forgetting something, so they made sure they had a safety net in place. They weren't dummies.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
"The Constitution makes no reference to heroin, and so the Federal Laws prohibiting its trafficking are unconstitutional."
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:1, Informative)
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Heroin laws not unconstitutional (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heroin laws not unconstitutional (Score:2)
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In the 1996 Presidential campaign, Bob Dole flew a couple of trial balloons about "dusting off the Tenth Amendment," which was Republican code for "get rid of social programs we don't like." I laughed and wondered if ol' Bob would be willing to have a real discussion of dusting off the Tenth Amendment and doing away with all the power the US Government has taken on without that power having been delegated to the government by the Constitution. Of course not!
The Tenth Amendment, like the Second, was designed to protect the people from the very government whose powers are specified by the Constitution. The Second Amendment was not about armies or self-defense against foreign invaders, as its modern-day opponents allege; it was designed to prevent the usurpation of power by the Federal Government that has in fact occurred over the 217+ years since the Constitution was written. I am sad to report that the meaning of the Second and Tenth Amendments is largely forgotten (favorite funny slogan for the ACLU: "Defending the rights guaranteed by the Amendments of the Bill of Rights-- all nine of them") and basically ended up amounting to nothing more than mere speedbumps, only slowing down (definitely NOT preventing) the theft of power from citizens of the USA by the government of the USA.
It's a little sad that I have to say this, but even though I've criticized both the Republicans and the ACLU (and thus, basically the entire political "spectrum" of the USA), this is not intended as any kind of troll. The meaning of the two Amendments in question is clear if you read the Constitution itself and other writings from the same time by the "framers" of the Constitution. The framers, having had to fight a war against a government they felt did not represent them, were very worried about their new government becoming like the one against which they had fought. Washington voluntarily stepping down after two terms as President due to concerns that he could become like a new "king" shows that this concern continued until at least 1797, more than 15 years after the end of the American Revolutionary War and more than a decade after the Constitution was written.
--Mark
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Want to stop drug use? Want to help the poor? Want to prevent companies from becoming too powerful? Want to prevent domestic industries from bombing out?
I personally think all of these are good ideas. However, government is not the only avenue you may pursue these on and anyone stuck in this dilusion is adding to the problem this thread is talking about.
Cheers
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:4, Informative)
The Tenth (same link) says that the Federal Government has no powers except those explicitly listed.
To paraphrase:
9. Even though we didn't mention them, you've got those rights.
10. If we didn't say the feds can do something, they can't.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
I have mod points, and I'd have modded you up if I hadn't already posted in this thread.
--Mark
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
10. If we didn't say the feds can do something, they can't.
In light of that interpretation, please justify the federal law against private ownership of nuclear weapons.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
Please give your interpretation of the meaning of the 9th and 10th.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
My interpretation of the 10th is the same.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
Article I enumerates the powers of Congress. If it's not listed there, then according to Amendment X, Congress doesn't have that power.
Amendment I lists some explicit rights. Amendment IX states that those rights are not the only ones that the People inherently have.
How does Am9 or Am10 "repeal Article 1"?
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
It doesn't. That's what I said.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
Though as I remember it (again, hazy on the details) is that Washington was offered a crown - the framers wanted to make him King - and he, to his everlasting credit, declined. They then came up with the office of President, and Washington accepted that instead.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights is a pretty amazing docu
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
This follows from the founding fathers' belief that man's fundamental state in nature is one of Freedom, and that man thrives in that state. The only real role of government is to prevent the woes of anarchy, such as murder and extortion. They believed in the free market. They believed in innocence until proven guilty. Their beliefs and the framework they laid out allowed the USA to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation in all of Earth's history.
Historians can tell you how the USA is the resul
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Also remember that the Constitution does not grant rights, but sets up a government whose job it is to protect what are/were thought of as "natural rights" - things like life, liberty, property, and their natural extensions. Privacy is a natural right. Security is another aspect of the rights of life/liberty - if your person is not secure against another's aggression, then you don't actually have the right of life, but are granted a privilege of life by the charity of the person who does not initiate force against you.
Natural rights of course end where others' natural rights begin. Thus, when the nation was born, there was no wealth redistribution - someone's right of life did not mean that they had the right to be kept alive. So just because you couldn't provide for yourself doesn't mean it was okay to infringe upon someone else's right of property through taxation to artificially extend your right of life. Today's welfare state is moving farther and farther away from that idea.
OT rant about "welfare states." (Score:3, Insightful)
In today's economy, there is a huge disparity between those with the most money and those with the least, especially in this country. The gaps between the haves and have nots create feelings of discontent, especially amongst those who can barely survive. This became particularly evident during the industrial revolution and really hasn't changed much since.
While morally laws such as these are touted to "level the playing fi
Re:OT rant about "welfare states." (Score:2)
To me this does not consititute welfare. But, I absolutely do not think we should give anything to those who are able bodied, and can work. There should be no hand outs to those who can work. With unemployment the way it is...do we real
Re:OT rant about "welfare states." (Score:2)
Re:OT rant about "welfare states." (Score:2)
This is tough...but, at some point, you do kind of have to take the incentive to have more kids to get more $$'s on welfare away. I know my answer is tough, and not easy for even me to swallow, but, I don't see other ways. The system we've had in the past tends to self-sustain itself, and hence you have generations of those caught in the vicious cyc
Re:OT rant about "welfare states." (Score:3, Insightful)
You are looking at the issue of welfare from your white (probably) middle-class perspective. You are making the incorrect assumption that everyone's experiences and world view are the same as yours and the world you live in is the same as the world everyone else lives in. Can you go out and interview for a good job? Probably. People who have come
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2, Informative)
Baloney Re: no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of "secure in their persons , houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" does this "person" not understand.
This whole "no right to privacy
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
>
> Time for an amendment.
Agreed!
AMENDMENT XXVIII:
Section 1. The fourth and ninth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
Section 1. The fourth and ninth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
The sad thing is that I can see Ashcroft creaming in his pants to get this one. Though, Ashcroft's version would read:
AMENDMENT XXVIII:
Section 1. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
I disagree. The constitution clearly states that citizens should be safe with regard to their personal effects and papers (something along those lines), and I would interpret this to go as far as covering data, even digital data, such as bank records. Also, on a person's property, if they construct walls to prevent peering eyes, then that person has total right to privacy within those walls, unless evidence is sufficient for a cou
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
And thus, you, like so many before you, have fallen prey to the most diabolical usurption of power in the history of government - that the Constitution grants rights to the people. In fact, the Constitution specifically enumerates a small number of things with which the Federal government is tasked, and goes on to specifically state that anything not mentioned IS a right of the states, or of the people. The primary argument raised against support for the Bill of Rights was that an enumeration of specific rights could, at some point in time, be construed by a corrupt Federal government leadership to mean that the only rights citizens have are those granted to them under the Constitution.
The problem with this line of thinking is that once you begin to argue with the government over which rights you do and do not have, the argument inevitably shifts to which rights the government chooses to grant you. The instant this becomes the topic for debate, you've already lost. A government that grants rights to its citizens is a government that can revoke those rights as soon as they become inconvenient or run counter to the particular goals at hand. Thus, we have government agents who may legally break into a citizen's home, confiscate their property, bug their computers and telephones, and may do so with a secret warrant obtained under secret proceedings where the burden of 'proof' is reduced to an agent's vague and generic answers to questions by a panel of judges whose hands are virtually tied into granting every application.
Let there be no mistake - the FISA court is nothing more than a single degree of seperation between the FBI and the KGB. It is a rubber stamp court whose sole purpose is to lend a sliver of credibility to something which would otherwise provoke riots in the streets.
I don't need an amendment to tell me which rights I have - I need an amendment to punish those who violate my rights with our most severe penalties. I want to see an amendment that provides for life in prison for members of congress who vote up legislation that blatantly violates the God-given/creator-granted/natural-born rights of the citizens of this country. Seeing as some see fit to ignore the highest laws of our land, I think it's time we spelled out specific and severe criminal punishments for those who just can't seem to keep their hands off the rights of the people. While it might be inconvenient to imprison every member of congress who voted up the PATRIOT ACT, it would certainly set the tone for further debate. While we're at it, I think we need a nice, long-winded amendment discussing just which things the Federal government can and cannot stick its nose into. Once we've cleared out all the crap that's accumulated over the past 100 years or so, (things like the 'War on Drugs', Corporate welfare, most of current welfare other such programs), I think we'll find that paying down the national debt is rather simple. Once that's payed down, we can rescind the Federal income tax - an unconstitutional 'head tax' that was passed under the pretext that it was a temporary emergency measure. Your state taxes will go up substantially, but will be nowhere near what they are now, when combined with Federal taxes.
Wiping out 60 - 70% of the Federal government's current tasks, jobs, budget, and powers would bring this country to a century of unparalleled prosperity and freedom. The Federal tyranny began with Lincoln's unconstitutional war against the break-away southern states, and continues to grow in size and power even today. At this point, the titanic beast bleeds money, spits fire, and does little to no good for the American people. Let's give most of this money to the states and get people in state governments who are responsible enough to use it well.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
Rubber-stamp court indeed.
...not in the USA, but it's common elsewhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently, we're relying on piecemeal precedent of prior interpretation and specific instances (see: HIPAA), which is an unreliable and horrendously expensive way to establish something that should be straight forward.
However, we should watch out for the caveats other countries have written. In the case of Iceland, Article 71 clearly establishes the right to privacy--and then gives an escape that
Not yet... (Score:2)
Technically, there is no right to privacy until the Supreme Court adds it to the Constitution.
Right now, they're still cleaning up after the addition of the "separation of church and state" clause - Give 'em a break, man. Lawmaking is hard on a judge...
And when the Supreme Court passes a law, don't bother looking for it in either the Constitution or the Federal Statutes.
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
Now if only we would get off ou
Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy (Score:2)
If not, there's always the 9th and 10th. . .
This should be interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think this postion was a sham to begin with and the people who created it knew that or very early on there was a lack of concern for what this position was to be and no one adhered to these rules. Now they will evaluate it? I for one want to see how this turns out. If kelly recvies anything less than a failing grade that will just prove to me (and I'm sure many other) that HomeLandSecurity and no regards for privacy.
Re:This should be interesting. (Score:2)
Patriot Act !~ /privacy/ (Score:5, Insightful)
you beat me to it... (Score:5, Insightful)
A nice little placebo position really. Let's make people think that privacy rights are being respected. It's like most privacy policies on websites; not worth the bandwidth they waste. Very little value when you don't have strong privacy laws as backup. And what's the point of having a privacy officer for the DHS when "anti-terrorism" laws don't allow for such things as being able to see what kind of information is registered on yourself in the first place?
Re:you beat me to it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Our politicians seem more determined to provide the "appearance of security/privacy/rights" rather than the actual goods. I s'pose it's less expensive for the taxpayer, and therefore a good thing!
Re:you beat me to it... (Score:2)
>
> A nice little placebo position really. Let's make people think that privacy rights are being respected. It's like most privacy policies on websites; not worth the bandwidth they waste.
In short, a former Doubleclick executive is perfect for the job!
Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/ (Score:1)
That and just plain moronic. The fact that Feingold was the only person to vote against it (or maybe 1 of 2 people) is one reason he may get my vote, though I don't agree with a lot of his other stuff.
Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/ (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/ (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, I'm sure you're the only one.
And I think it's double plus good that they have a privacy officer!
Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/ (Score:1)
Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/ (Score:2)
>
> At least we didn't have to register to read their comments.
You take back what you said about Raph Koster [unknownplayer.com] and his project to modernize the opinion-gathering function of the Federal Register, or your kids are spending the rest of their lives in Gitmo, starting tomorrow, bud! We give you citizens access to the workings of government, but we can ban you just as quick!
Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/ (Score:2)
Yes I can! Even the Act is an oxymoron. But then so is the "Department of Homeland Security" and the "Central Intelligence Agency." Of course nobody noticed when the US Defense Department was called on to actually defend the USA on 9/11/2001 and after we found out it was not the "Defense of the USA" they were talking about. Why it wasn't their job to do that!
To be a bit more serious for a moment the /. community needs to demand the US Congress forbid the transmission, storage or processing of a long lis
Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/ (Score:2)
It's called by many names, such as spin, double-speak, etc. Relying on the government to protect citizens' privacy is naive, foolish, and downright stupid. The conflicts of interest are too great, and the temptations too strong.
HIPPA (Score:4, Interesting)
The US needs UK like data privacy laws where no company or organization can ship private information outside the homeland's jurisdiction. This will not only help keep jobs in the country but protect the US from a digital "Pearl Harbor"
Re:HIPPA (Score:4, Insightful)
The right track? Maybe. They are defintely on the same track though. Using it when its a high profile person and everyone else gets loss in the fray. When the govt' standardizes the HIPPA procedures then maybe I can agree with you. Passing a law and then having people execute/follow the *same* law in differnt ways will lead to loopholes and do more harm than good.
A small explanation (Score:4, Informative)
For those that weren't immediately able to understand what the story is about (that includes me), here is the start of the Wired article:
Re:A small explanation (Score:4, Informative)
Which translates as, "We may be just window-dressing here."
There is an inherent conflict between privacy and security, and it is good to see that this is at least being revisited. Election years are good times to review policies, so maybe there is a serious intent to protect everyone's privacy in the US, but I have doubts.
Privacy vs protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy vs protection (Score:1)
Protection: Gov. can (will ?
Re:Privacy vs protection (Score:1)
That been said, I totally agree with everything you have written. It's getting all a bit out of hand I think.
Oh, and by the way, I'm in the military too...
---
Re:Privacy vs protection (Score:2)
While I understand the criticisms people have against the Patriot Act, I cannot understand how anybody can make this assertion. It is ridiculous for anybody to claim that they know what we would and would not know if this legislation was in place prior to 9/11.
There were 19 hijackers on 9/11, and as many as eight of them carried passports that "showed evidence of fraudulent manipulation," while as many as five of the passports ha
Re:Privacy vs protection (Score:2)
Like similar positions? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not in this administration.
Part of freedom is the ability to do what one pleases as long as it does not hurt or affect others. But now I'm seeing laws that allow the government (under the pretense of law enforcement) to surveil whoever they want without a judge giving the OK. This administration has soiled the sacrifices of those brave soldiers on earlier battlefields; it has twisted the tragic deaths of those on 9/11; it has waged war by deceiving the American public.
These are our new overlords.
Re:Like similar positions? (Score:2)
Republicans, being more business-minded, can't ignore the profitability of raw data. Democrats, being more social-minded, can't ignore the political value of raw data.
Either way, privacy is at stake.
Learn to live with it (Score:2, Insightful)
while this is true... (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently in the US, "anything goes." Companies promise to keep data private, only to sell or transfer it to third parties, as in the case of several airlines. Sensitive personal data is outsourced to countries like India and Pakistan for processing. What happens? The natives can threaten to release this data if they're not paid a certain amount of money.
In Europe, EU and individual national laws dictate that this data can among other things only be used for a specific purpose determined before data collection, not be used for other purposes, and not be released to third parties without the consent of the data subject. Furthermore, personal data cannot be transferred to countries that do not have privacy laws equivalent to or stronger than the Directive.
The EU Directive [cdt.org] is the rule; countries in the EU and EEA are required to have national privacy laws based on the Directive.
Re:while this is true... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually on the evening news last night it appears you are giving the airlines a bad rap, though you are citing legitimate past transgressions. The TSA is apparently desperate to start testing its new screening program, which requires every detail about every passenger be exposed to TSA including credit history and any criminal record, including misdemeanors. If there are ANY issues
Re:Learn to live with it (Score:2)
Re:Learn to live with it (Score:1)
Perhaps those clauses should be treated in the same manner as a clause that stated:
"By using this credit card you implicitly consent to becoming our slave should we ever want you to."
That is: completely unenforceable.
Re:Learn to live with it (Score:2, Interesting)
Scott McNealy would really like it everyone gave up their privacy. He wants people to get over it.
Re:Learn to live with it (Score:2, Insightful)
If the issue is difficult and stressful, then ignore it and enjoy your life. But please don't make public statements of acceptance of injustice, just to make you feel better.
You signed your note anonymous. Even if I try real hard, I can't find out who you are or where you live. Even if I consider your position anathema to my grand economic and political goals, and decide I need to send goons over to eliminate you as
Re:Learn to live with it (Score:2)
People expressing such complacency are very disappointing. Actually, what's at stake here is even having the choice of privacy. What do you think now? At least, now, I can choose to do business with companies with good policies towards my information. I can still feel somewhat confident that the government doesn't have its tendrils into every aspect of my life. We do still have privacy, because of compartmentalization. Don't forget that.
Big Brother (Score:4, Interesting)
Chipping at Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing seems to happen at first, and then you see a few flakes fall - nothing much. It seems nothing is happening to the huge block of stone. And then suddenly with just one more blow the whole block of stone splits apart.
Unfortunately, what is happening to the stone as each hammer blow pounds on it is not visible - and our eyes cannot see what our minds cannot see. Trusting our eyes we don't realize what is happening to the our privacy, and less so as to what effect it shall have on us
.
We need more or less privacy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Whenever I visit a tourist attraction that has a guest register, I always sign it. After all, you never know when you'll need an alibi.
I've been doing this since I was a kid, but these days you don't have to take any positive action to leave a trail behind. Almost everything we do is recorded. Closed-circuit cameras watch us in most public places. Our credit-card purchases, japanese schoolgirl tentacle porn, telephone calls and Web surfing are all tracked these days.
Editorialists have decried these losses of privacy, as if it were the most sacred of human rights. But just what is the value of privacy? Do we really need it? And, indeed, can we afford it? After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.
Re:We need more or less privacy? (Score:2)
that's why we need privacy.
Mods: this post copied in its entirety... (Score:2)
Sean
The Fine Line in the Sand (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that we need is well defined goals and some way of measuring preformance. Then I will start to worry about if I am giving up too much of my privacy in the cause of feeling "safe".
Re:The Fine Line in the Sand (Score:1)
The thing is, the less privacy you have, the less security you have; the less privacy others have, the more security you have.
Your basic problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the core issue: no one is safe against a sufficiently determined adversary, regardless of preventive measures which may have been put into place "ahead of time."
In fact, from a psychological perspective, putting too many ineffective barriers to harm in place may actually have the effect of lulling the populace (read: target) into a false sense of security. Case in point: grandmothers getting anal cavity searches during "routine" airport screenings (sorry for the nasty mental image, it's for purposes of illustration).
There is simply no way to reliably defend a large land mass against random insurgent attacks from loosely organized parties, especially when said attacking parties are comfortable with the notion of dying for their cause. I don't advocate our leaving Iraq anytime soon, as that would be utterly disastrous in the long term, but you only have to look at CNN each morning to note the steady stream of attacks on U.S. forces. True, the attacks don't have any significant impact on the forces deployed at large, but they will continue as long as people are willing to lay down their lives in the name of rebellion (or freedom, depending on which side of the fence you're standing on).
Personally, I think any measure of success in all of this goes back to people worrying about preserving their own immediate liberty first while still standing ready to defend their country as a whole against attack. This is not to be confused with attempting to play Dad to the entire nation while leaving one's own door unlocked, a practice many people seem somewhat adept at these days.
Of course, I'm probably going to be branded an armchair-this-or-that for my rambling, but so it goes.
Seeking partnerships with web design firms. [transops.net]
They got it, finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Sussing the Average Congressman (Score:2)
Everybody, in principle
-kgj
Worth watching? Err... (Score:4, Insightful)
How about "worth getting off your duff and getting involved in?"
Democratic government (insert pfft! here) is not a spectator sport.
Summary of discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy of politicians = security measure
accountability (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I call bullshit (Score:1)
Re:I call bullshit (Score:2)
Never mind that, how about posting address & phone number details too? No? Got something to hide then?
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, that sums up my life pretty well, too.
I've read some Chomsky (Score:3, Insightful)
His political writings are deliciously fact-free. His ideology warps everything very badly. He is viewing things through an invalid and disproven simplistic theory (Marxism) which has little relationship with actual events. It is like reading stuff where everything is explained by Xemu or orgone energy.
He's also very gullible: if a horrific fascist dictator claims to be a Marxist, Chomsky i
Re:I've read some Chomsky (Score:1)
You cannot easily write of a portion of theory as being "invalid" and "disproven", and to say so for Marxism is truly ridiculous.
Re:Marxism is invalid (Score:3, Interesting)
Since I'm not sure, I'll continue. YHBT me if you have to.
Okay, how can you say North Korea, is a "Marxist government", what is that supposed to mean? Like, this is an honest question, please elaborate. My understanding is that it is extremely Stalinist in character. The gap from Stalinist to Marxist is not negligible; at least or more as qualitatively as all of
Butchered sentence; correction: (Score:1)
should be something like:
"...at least or more as qualitatively as large as the gap from all of the world's current socialist governments."