The Privacy Candidate

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 Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.'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?

yesno

[gardyloo]

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.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated

[gardyloo]

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?

but but but

[Anonymous Coward]

A girl!

I only know

[Kaenneth]

I won't be voting for Bush.

I have to wonder...

[erroneus]

...what events in Clinton's life might have motivated her push for more privacy? Muhahahaha!

Re:I only know

[heretic108]

I won't be voting for Bush.

Oh, really [wikipedia.org]??

Re:What I wonder is

[icegreentea]

to keep the light out???

Re:Please try to remember...

[umbrellasd]

...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.

You should not have looked!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Did you invade her privacy to determine that she's a girl?

Re:"Ethanol's neat," Clinton says to corn growers.

[commodoresloat]

the Society for People Unreasonably Afraid That Their Children Are Going To Die in Terrorist Attacks

Didn't they shorten the name to "America"?

Right to privacy

[MeanMF]

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

None of your business!

Re:What I wonder is

[JazzLad]

My bathroom door is to protect those around during and for about an hour after.