Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government United States Politics

The Privacy Candidate 593

Posted by kdawson
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 Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.'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This discussion has been archived.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 Privacy Candidate

Comments Filter:
  • by Lord Grey (463613) * on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:05PM (#17793370)

    Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

    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.

    • by jofny (540291) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:09PM (#17793400) Homepage
      The right to privacy goes hand in hand with the right to free speech and, as such, is one of the rights that must absolutely be kept healthy to sustain our country. Without it, the rest falls apart. So yes, the right to privacy is one of thekey issues for me when considering candidates.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sumdumass (711423)
        I'm not saying that the right to privacy shouldn't be taken into consideration but when it is a defining factor then it will only get worse.

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by flyingsquid (813711)
          As for Senator Clinton being a pro privacy advocate? I would say that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It was her husband who started echelon

          The Echelon program did not start under Clinton. From Wikipedia: "Reportedly created to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its East Bloc allies during the Cold War in the early sixties, today ECHELON is believed to search also for hints of terrorist plots, drug-dealers' plans, and political and diplomatic intelligence."

        • Did you mean Magic Lantern? I'm pretty sure the Green Lantern was otherwise occupied during the Clinton administration.

          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.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by banana fiend (611664)
            "are just words on paper that can be ignored as the powers-that-be wish"

            ho-hum. In Ireland, we have a more restrictive gun regime. The government is no more corrupt and bloated than in America (though also no less so). Have you (as an American), or anyone you have ever known, or indeed anyone you have read about in the last 100 years changed the way the government has been eroding your rights through the use of a gun?

            I'm not saying there is anything wrong with owning guns, just that it's not a great det
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nasch (598556)

            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.

            What you're talking about is a large scale, violent resistance movement. If it's not large, the government can easily suppress it regardless of the Constitution, and if it's not violent there's no need for guns or the 2nd Amendment anyway. If things got so bad that hundreds of thousands of people all across the country were angry enough to take up arms against the govern

    • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:10PM (#17793402)
      Don't vote on what they say, vote on what they have done. I don't know Hillary's record on privacy, but I suspect it is not good. Check her voting record in the Senate. Talk is cheap.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        If they're willing to at least talk about it and make it an issue, they're already miles ahead of the other guys on the issue.
      • by garcia (6573)
        Thank you! If I was able to get mod points (I haven't had them in years) I would put you through to +500.

        Hillary has proven that she *only* talks ("Think of the children!"). If you think that she can "think of the children" and protect us all from the evils of the Internet while protecting our privacy at the same time, you're wrong.

        The only way I would vote for her is if President GWB rewrote the books so that he could run for a third term and she was the only other option.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by sgt_doom (655561)
        Extremely well articulated, Citizen Atilla Dimedici (great name, BTW)!!

        The best records in congress are held by Rep. Kucinich, Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Russell Feingold, and as always, Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont.....(Although I am glad to see a fellow Vietnam veteran, Hegel of Ohio, finally retracted his head out of his butt and is finally seeing the light on the illegitimate and unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq - WHERE THE HELL IS OSAMA - hiding in the Bush family basement????)

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Stormwatch (703920)

          Although I am glad to see a fellow Vietnam veteran, Hegel of Ohio, finally retracted his head out of his butt and is finally seeing the light on the illegitimate and unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq

          And just what is it that makes an invasion "legitimate"? I'll use Ayn Rand's definition: a tyranny is not a legitimate government, thus has no right to sovereignity. This means ANY free nation has the right to invade ANY dictatorship to overthrow its rulers at ANY moment they find convenient.

          • Legitimate invasions (Score:4, Informative)

            by Per Abrahamsen (1397) on Monday January 29, 2007 @04:14AM (#17797100) Homepage
            > And just what is it that makes an invasion "legitimate"?

            That country invading an ally of yours. George H. W. Bush's invasion of Iraq was legitimate.
      • by MacDork (560499) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @09:37PM (#17794642) Journal
        According to this page: [ontheissues.org]
        • Metal detectors at school are not much of an intrusion. (Jun 1999)
        • License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000)
        • Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
        • Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
        • Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
        • Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
        • And of course... Pushing for privacy bill of rights. (Jun 2006)

        So she supports privacy when it suits her agenda, just like everyone else in DC.

      • Hillary was moving to the right to secure her national security cred, then the War became unpopular, and now she is running to the left. She is so disingenuous that SNL - no conservative bastion - parodied the crap out of her last week.

        I'd also warn everyone that the founder of Hillarycare - the mandatory socialized medicine boondoggle that would have banned private payer insurance - doesn't sound all that right-to-privacy to me (the right to privacy, not enumerated in the Constitution, was based on liber

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by gardyloo (512791)
      I'm tired of watching my privacy dwindle away, and I want it to stop.

          Don't you think it's rude to watch it so closely?
    • Justice Brandeis called it "... the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized men. "

    • by raehl (609729) <raehl311@nOSPam.yahoo.com> on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:50PM (#17793734) Homepage
      For a candidate running for Senator or Representative.

      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.
      • by StikyPad (445176) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @09:27PM (#17794532) Homepage
        their stand on a whole host of other things that Congress gets to determine doesn't matter.

        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.
    • by icebike (68054)
      This from the same woman who wanted to nationalize your health care records
      and damn near pulled it off.

      It's amazing how short some people's memory is.
  • yesno (Score:5, Funny)

    by gardyloo (512791) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:07PM (#17793380)
    Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

          Yes, sure I --

          *bzzzt!*

          Ouch! Er... I mean, no, no I wouldn't.
  • by Eldragon (163969) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:10PM (#17793410)
    The real question is, did she say what she did because she wanted to preach to the choir, or because she actually believes in privacy?

    It was the American Constitution Society after all...
  • What I wonder is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iguana (8083) * <davep@extendsyCHEETAHs.com minus cat> on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:12PM (#17793420) Homepage Journal
    if privacy isn't important, why do homes have curtains?
  • by CosmeticLobotamy (155360) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:12PM (#17793424)
    Clinton gave a speech last June to the American Constitution Society

    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.
  • Hillary =! privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:13PM (#17793428) Homepage Journal
    Not bashing her just beacuse, but her history does not support her intent to protect privacy. This is just poliical rhetoric to get elected. ( typical of *all* candidates as they ramp up towards an election )
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)
      Not bashing her just beacuse, but her history does not support her intent to protect privacy. This is just poliical rhetoric to get elected. ( typical of *all* candidates as they ramp up towards an election)

      The one good thing about it is that as rhetoric, more people are going to hear about it. It's now "on the table" when last election nobody with a chance of getting elected to office would ever pro-actively bring up the subject.
  • by daeg (828071) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:13PM (#17793430)
    No, a strong stance on the right to privacy won't sway my vote. All politicians of all levels of government should respect this, regardless of party.

    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)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:13PM (#17793432)
    I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.
    • by QuantumG (50515) *
      Yep, and that, not this, will be her campaign for president. I heard recently that the only other serious candidate is a black dude. So yeah, the US being what it is, I guess she has already won.

    • I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.

      Please point me to the candidate who says we don't need to protect children from violent video games.

    • Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)

      by noz (253073) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:34PM (#17793600)

      I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.
      Like all things in life, voting is about balance. Sure, if one particular policy offends you so much, you will vote for the opponent, but enough of the opponent's policies may offend you too. You must also consider that video games may be trivial in comparison to other policies, such as liberties. It is your vote.

      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."
      • Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)

        by evanbd (210358) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @08:45PM (#17794120)

        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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:15PM (#17793442)
    Wasn't she the Senator who wanted to force government regulation of video games? [gamespot.com]

    So, um, no. I don't think I'd vote for her regardless of what her stance of privacy is.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kelbear (870538)
      She had joined up with Jack Thompson.

      It's not so much the idea of damage to gaming, but that she would sink so far to propagate fear, uncertainty, and deception in order to garner public favor. That heavily damages my perception of her character. To manipulate fears by portraying games as training kids to kill people is trying to play off ignorance and capitalize on it to the detriment of the responsible people who are aware that it is not a threat. It makes me wonder what else she'd be willing to do or tra
  • by straponego (521991) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:16PM (#17793448)
    You want a consistent defender of privacy rights, look toward Patrick Leahy or Russ Feingold. Hillary... just today she stated that she wants *all* US troops out of Iraq by the time the next President takes office, so that she doesn't have to take the blame for the "surrender." Well, gee, you should have thought of that before you voted for the war, dontcha think? Their is no way that there will be zero US troops in Iraq in 2008 or in 2018. You know this. You don't want to face the consequences of your actions, any of them, ever. And this makes you more trustworthy than Bush... how?

    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.

    • But she was misled! That is why she voted for the war. No one told her that the war might have had a downside! There were no resources like history books or the like that she could have consulted that would tell her that starting a war might not be the best idea ever. So we can forgive her for being misled.
  • I only know (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kaenneth (82978) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:16PM (#17793458) Homepage Journal
    I won't be voting for Bush.
  • her idea of privacy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:18PM (#17793468) Homepage
    Hillary Clinton's idea of "privacy" is about the same as that behind the "Medical Privacy Act". This made it a Federal offense to disclose medical records, standardized the records keeping, and made it all available to the government upon request. To her "privacy" is that between civilians; the government and its employees are a whole 'nother matter.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:18PM (#17793474) Homepage
    ...what events in Clinton's life might have motivated her push for more privacy? Muhahahaha!
  • NORML (Score:4, Insightful)

    by popo (107611) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:19PM (#17793480) Homepage
    One of NORML's [norml.org] primary arguments about private (ie: 'at home') consumption is that it is protected under the Constitutional "right to privacy".

    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. ...Because those the rocks that many ships have wrecked upon.

  • by Gazzonyx (982402) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:23PM (#17793504)
    Am I the only one thinking that privacy is more of a perception than a reality?

    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...

  • Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

    Yes, but this candidate's support of national health care cancels it out. I don't want to be forced to pay for other people's health care (especially filtered through government bureaucracy, ugh).

    Let the flames begin...

    • Flames? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mark_MF-WN (678030)
      Anyone who can rip on the Democratic party without following it up with some lame attempt to justify the actions of the Blackshirts... well, they get a thumbs up from me.

      Don't get me wrong: I despise libertarians (not just their ideas -- the people as well; I'm bitter like that :) ) and I think they're living in a deranged fantasy world where people get along by magic and things get done because divine intervention coordinates peoples' efforts ... but at least they don't go around trying to justify Fasci

  • Not hers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lewp (95638) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:28PM (#17793550) Journal

    Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

    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)

    by wile_e_wonka (934864) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:29PM (#17793568)
    My problem with this is the use of the phrase "right to privacy." Clinton is a brilliant lawyer, and I know that she understands what "right to privacy" means in the legal sense. The "right to privacy" is the (supposedly) constitutionally protected right for a person to make decisions intimately affecting their own lives. This "right to privacy" allows a person to raise and educate their children as they see fit (allowing Amish people to educate their kids at home despite laws mandating public education for all), have an abortion prior to the time the fetus is viable, marry across racial lines, use birth control, cohabitate, and a few other like things.

    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).
  • by petrus4 (213815) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:36PM (#17793616) Homepage Journal
    ...that even among other such politicians, Hillary is one of the most blatant, shameless populists ever to have walked the Earth. Her perspectives, her very mind itself in its' entirety is completely for sale, for the purpose of gaining votes.

    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.
    • Exactly — she's the Tipper Gore kind of liberal who would prefer government censorship to actual parenting. She may talk big about piracy because it's become a huge issue the Democrats can latch onto, but she'll be first in line to make RFID collars if children's saftey is even the smallest bit involved.

      Do we really have to go back and forth between two horrible, terrible political extremes?
    • by umbrellasd (876984) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:53PM (#17793752)

      ...that even among other such politicians, Hillary is one of the most blatant, shameless populists ever to have walked the Earth. Her perspectives, her very mind itself in its' entirety is completely for sale, for the purpose of gaining votes.
      On the one hand, I think what you are saying is she has no opinion of your own, but on the other hand what I'm hearing when you say this is: "She will support the opinion that the majority want," which is the point of a representational government.

      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.

      • by petrus4 (213815)
        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.

        Has anyone had "the talk" with you about Santa Claus yet?

        More seriously, politicians only give a d
    • And, on a bigger scale, let's not forget that it's usually the minority party that is clamoring about individual rights. Then the party becomes the party in power, and the roles switch.

      Same old.
  • Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
    Would you consider a candidate's support of the Constitution important enough to sway your vote?
  • Ron Paul? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hsmith (818216) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:37PM (#17793624)
    Why is he not the for runner of this article? He is greatly opposed to the govt's invasion of privacy, he strongly opposed the REALID Act, and he continues to argue for INDIVIDUAL'S rights.
    • by catbutt (469582)
      I'm even more opposed to the invasion of privacy, so why isn't the article about me? As a write in candidate, I also have a nearly equal chance of winning as Ron Paul does.
    • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by isotope23 (210590) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @08:02PM (#17793820) Homepage Journal
      It will be interesting to see if any of the other republican candidates have the balls to debate him.
      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.
  • One of the top 5 issues that slashdotters are probably concerned about are globalization/free trade/offshoring. Unfortunately, her views on globalization are not too slashdot friendly http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_ C linton_Free_Trade.htm [ontheissues.org]. This is of course assuming that pro-free trade promotes offshoring/offsourcing while protectionism would not. Her views on globalization have been flip-flopping recently, so it will be interesting to see what side she takes when election time comes.

    My
  • Unfortunately, I suspect that HC would say what ever was necessary to win, and then wouldn't follow through on her promises. I'm not a Republican - and if I were (and I could be objective about it) I'd want Clinton to win. Examine her voting record - she's very conservative. I don't think Obama is much of a choice either. Frankly, I'm hoping that Gore runs again.
  • Seriously who wrote that question and how long have they lived in the US? I think anyone with a brain at this point knows a politicians words mean nothing.

    The real question is:

    1) Who's funding her and do those people have anything to gain by eroding privacy?
    2) What's her previous track record? What was she doing about the Patriot Act? etc etc.
  • by stubear (130454) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @07:46PM (#17793698)
    ...stand on the First Amendment? Remember Hillary was the Senator leading the charge against Take2/Rockstar over Hot Coffee.
  • Yes, it's important. It's one of the paramount issues we face today. Hell, I'd not only support a candidate that talked about privacy (there aren't any in Sweden), I'd even start a new party focused on privacy and the right to a private life.

    Oh, wait. I did. [piratpartiet.se] And it was reasonably successful too, although the privacy debate is just starting out in Sweden...
  • by MeanMF (631837) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @08:07PM (#17793842) Homepage

    Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
    None of your business!
  • I do not trust Hillary Clinton at all. She is a blatant political opportunist of the worst sort. I have no doubt that she would talk loudly about privacy when anybody was looking, then implement totally opposite policies to gain political favor.

  • by kleinmatic (129203) on Sunday January 28, 2007 @08:21PM (#17793940) Homepage
    I'm sure few people here actually read this. I can hardly blame you -- it's long, and it's mostly just bland generalities, with the details both rare and disappointing.

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smellsofbikes (890263)
      >That is, had only Bush asked congress for "authorization" -- which would surely have been forthcoming -- everything would have been okay.

      I have mixed feelings about this. What Bush did was wrong, but the question is what part of it was wrong. It's not like he could go to the entire population of the United States -- or the whole world -- and say "can I spy on anyone, any time, without any given reasons?"
      If you grant that there's a reason for a government to spy on people -- and the US Constitution say
  • It's not possible for the government to provide you with health care AND protect your privacy at the same time.

The difficult we do today; the impossible takes a little longer.

Working...