Rosenzweig Now Chairman of DHS Privacy Board 214
An anonymous reader writes "Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative lawyer and prominent proponent of the Pentagon's controversial Total Information Awareness project, has been
appointed the first chairman of the Department of Homeland Security's privacy board. This follows the appointment of an executive of Gator to the board. Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that, rather than viewing protection of privacy as priority, Rosenzweig 'tends to view privacy as something to be circumvented.' Are the foxes guarding the henhouse when it comes to government and privacy?"
I am really worried (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, this paranoia and disrespect for the law isn't much different than the death of Roman democracy. Add to that the fact that we are bleeding wealth like crazy and you have a the makings of a disaster.
I wonder how hard it is to emigrate to New Zealand?
Hiding stuff. (Score:5, Interesting)
The real need is to roll back the ability of the mob to make your life miserable if you choose to think or do something that is unconventional.
In the long run, which is going to leave us in a better position? Should we be fighting to maintain privacy in the face of increasingly efficient snooping, or fighting for freedom of thought and action?
Not that anyone's really going sacrifice much to achieve either of those goals . . . .
Bordes completely shut?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am really worried (Score:1, Interesting)
At least your agenda is clear. Please link to some supporting material for this accusation.
They say it's all about stopping terrorists. They are trying to build a 'Fortress America' with the borders completely shut.
ROFL. I suppose you mean "borders completely shut" except for the giant flood of illegal aliens coming across.
We are already seeing scientists from other countries shunning the States because it is such a pain getting a visa.
Care to provide some statistics showing how much of a problem this actually is? Further, I suggest we get more Americans interested in science, which is the only good long-term solution to this problem. Lack of interest in science among Americans is something you certainly can't lay at the doorstep of the current administration!
We are going to see Americans having as much trouble getting back into the States as foreigners do. (ie. you won't be able to get back in from Canada without a passport.)
Wow, I've never heard of a country requiring a passport for entry/exit.
American trade is going to dry up because nobody will want to do business with us.
Non sequitur anyone?
Basically, this paranoia and disrespect for the law isn't much different than the death of Roman democracy.
Exactly! I mean, when they abolished free elections last year and enacted martial law across the country, that was a clear signal wasn't it...? lol
Add to that the fact that we are bleeding wealth like crazy and you have a the makings of a disaster.
I guess you missed the article yesterday that pointed out that a large percentage of the trade deficit was actually going to foreign companies wholly owned by US interests. In other words, the profits of those companies are ending up right here in the United States.
Nice rant, though...
I wonder how hard it is to emigrate to New Zealand?
Quite hard. Also, I guess you don't know that New Zealand has a much more draconian "closed border" policy than the US...? I'd give up on that if I were you, your beloved Canada is waiting with open arms...
Re:Write and get help! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lower taxes, state's rights, and free trade have never been considered traditional liberal values, at least not any time in the last 50 years, so it's hardly surprising that you find liberal politicians working against those goals. And since when have liberal politicians made proclamations of personal morality a primary message of their campaigns?
Liberals have their tropes, to be sure, and you can find plenty of politicians abandoning their stated principles on the left. That doesn't mean the right isn't doing it. If anything, conservatives should by the very definition of the word "conservative" be much more concerned with upholding their traditional values. I see those values (a lot of which I agree with) falling by the wayside and it saddens me.
Re:Bordes completely shut?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am really worried (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't that interesting; you've hit on one of those inner conflicts that the Repubs are grappling with. On the one hand, their socially conservative, xenophobic base wants to keep all of those dirty brown people on the other side of the wall. On the other, their conservative corporate base wants a big flood of Cheap Surplus Labor to keep the domestic brand from getting too uppity. One side supplies the foot soldiers, and the other supplies the cold, hard cash, and they need both. So, they'll make noise and give speeches about the problem, while actually doing as little about it as they can get away with. Wisdom of Solomon, that's what it's going to take...
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony is that this is true exactly to the extent that we believe it to be true, and are willing to act on our beliefs. Cynical helplessness always plays into the hands of established power.
Re:Hiding stuff. (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree.
Consenting adults should not be legally prohibited from engaging in any activity or speech they want, whatsoever, the only exception being to protect some overriding societal interest.
Unfortunately this principle isn't explicitly stated in the US Constitution, so instead an implicit right to privacy has been used in its place.
Why do we need limitations surveillance and the collection of information? I don't mind if I have to withstand peer pressure in order to act, think, and speak as I like, within the law -- so long as others can only express disapproval through their own free speech.
It is a good thing if the government, private organizations, and the public are all aware of what one another are doing, but only react to that information in ways allowed by the law.
COINTELPRO-like efforts by federal agents to infiltrate and disrupt private groups would be ineffective if the public could rapidly become aware of such activity and organize against it. This is a current concern, because the DOD is poised to resume the domestic spying program it gave up in the 60's: http://cryptome.org/dod-homespy.htm [cryptome.org]
Laws restricing surveillance make it more difficult to expose activity that is potentially threatening and may require legislative attention. For example, are religious groups and secret socities infilitrating our corporations and public institutions? Here is a web site raising such concerns about activities of the Unification Church (aka "moonies"): http://iapprovethismessiah.com/2005/01/moon-funnel s-250000-to-bush.html [iapprovethismessiah.com]. There are similar concerns about activities of Scientologists, other religious groups, and possible secret socities.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't remember anyone claiming that Bush said that. As I understood it, people were saying that his actions were going to make it inevitable that a draft would be necessary. Do you have any references which say otherwise? I'm genuinely curious.
-Chris
Re:Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:1, Interesting)
It seems in the end if you consider everything important you get fucked, the only difference is in what hole you take it.
I Agree with Rosenzweig (Score:3, Interesting)
when he says
I think he's right.A little less privacy at the highest levels of government and in the corporate ranks would do wonders for increasing their dismal reputations for hiding incompetance and fraudulent behavior.
Perhaps this new found penetration of privacy could be applied to the Vice President's meetings with business officials to come up with an energy policy. God knows we're ready for one.