The Privacy Candidate 593
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 Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.'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?
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)
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hillary =! privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Never ever would I vote for her (Score:1, Insightful)
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).
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No thanks (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
God, I wish I could believe. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but where does she... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: they can't make law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe the fact that she's a senator, and that the senate voted 98-1 in favor of the PATRIOT Act?
Don't be fooled by Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
Buring flags in private will be ok. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hillary =! privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hilary, Hilary, Hilary... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 trade away. By itself it's a minor thing, but it captures an extremely disturbing picture of the person.
If she were to have disagreed with me on similarly minor topics that would have been fine so long as I feel that her position on major issues justify my vote. But now I can't trust anything she says or does, I'll just have to look for a different candidate.
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.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't be fooled by Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't underestimate the veto, I estimate that presidents aren't likely to use it when it needs to be used - again, going by history. The difference between a regular majority and a veto majority is indeed considerable. The trick to getting a president to veto is they can't be trying to make deals (unlikely) they can't owe any political favors (unlikely) they can't have lobbyists whispering in their ears about post-term favors (not just unlikely, close to impossible), and they have to keep their campaign promises (not well supported by history.)
Yeah, I'm pretty cynical. But they definitely earned it.
parent wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
Her position on the war is not relevant to whether she keeps promises. Changing position on a total disaster (Iraq) is however a sign of either intelligence OR proper representation of her state. You'd have to look at her promises and voting record to determine how trust worthy she is. Not the commentary that passes as news today.
ANYBODY who can make privacy a bigger issue should be encouraged! At least then privacy becomes 1 of only a few issues that will be discussed next election. At this point just sending positive messages to Hillary and media about her on this issue will help, even if you don't support her. They use the public, why can't slashdot manipulate them?
FYI:
Authorization for Iraq included 'small print' that you should read since the media did not. Also remember the USA has not had a WAR since WW2. They only funded it; never declared war.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hillary's talk is cheap (Score:3, Insightful)
Marriage is a religious construct, e.g., a contract between a man and a woman and "God." Government should have NO say whatsoever where it comes to say who can or cannot marry whom because it is infringing on freedom of worship. Leave it up to the churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/etc. to decide who can and who cannot marry.
This solves the problem of the "marriage penalty" - and as far as benefits, insurance, etc. are concerned? Choose companies which honor the type of "marriage" or "contract" or "partnership" you have.
Tax breaks for dependents? Eliminate them. If you have dependents, you are using more public resources than single folks or "married" people who have no children. If anything, you should pay MORE taxes, rather than relying on those who use few resources to give you a free ride on your children's education. Better yet, send your children to private schools; provide a higher-quality education for them, and leach less off of public resources.
Government Health care incompatible with privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Flames? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 Fascism. That's a marked improvement over the current political debate in America. One side promoting a vision of a theocratic police state, the other side trying to convince people that they share that vision. What the hell!
As an aside, you do know that Americans already pay, through the government, nearly 70% of what Canadians do, for Health care? And for what? If anything, a universal healthcare system (not necessarily a single-payor system like ours, but SOMETHING) would provide vastly better value for your tax dollars. As it stands, Americans are paying that 70% for basically nothing. It's not hard to see why the universal healthcare movement in the US is gaining momentum -- especially when "conservatives" aren't willing to reclaim that money by cancelling existing national healhcare programs. That said, of course, it's not really the federal government's business... Even in Canada, the provinces are the ones in charge of the healthcare program. The Federal government just mandates that such programs have to be in place, as well as providing a certain amount of the funding.
You'll probably start caring a lot more about public healthcare when there's a major outbreak of TB in your city and your kids get sick ... just because the low income families that live on the other side of town can't afford antibiotics, people with HIV can't get their medications and act as reservoirs for TB to fester and become more virulent, there are no programs to get junkies (another major TB reservoir) off the street, etcetera. Diseases affect everyone. For that matter, worker productivity affects everyone -- healthy people contribute more to a strong economy than low taxes do. There are very good economic reasons to get behind universal healthcare of one kind or another. And until employers start giving full health-benefits to their part-time and contract workers, universal healthcare is the only way that low-income families will ever have access to a reasonable level of medical care.
All that said, you still get a high-five for not getting behind the Blackshirts. Good job. I'd rather vote Libertarian than Republican or Democrat (thankfully, all three of the major Canadian political parties are vastly superior to either of them).
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:3, Insightful)
More than that, a healthy distrust of politicians is the essence of patriotism itself!
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!
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:1, Insightful)
A nation has every right they can take themself. There is no right or wrong in politics, there's only better off or worse off if you do something. A country that cannot enforce its will may just as well have no rights, a country that can enforce its will on others can do what it likes. Of course an action has both external and internal consequences so starting wars your populace doesn't agree with can anger them and result in a rebellion. That's what propaganda is for, to make your populace be more afraid of not going to war than going to war.
Naturally, the common people don't want war
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:3, Insightful)
She is all about using your abilities to your fullest. Working hard for yourself. Getting rewarded for your hard work. What is wrong with that philosophy? I think it's much better than expecting the gov. to take care of you and me paying a huge portion of my reward for working hard in taxes to take of people who often just want to be on the public dole.
Sorry, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
She's not interested in your rights, she interested in empowering the government to dupe you into giving away all individual decision-making to it. Her idea of an ideal society can bee summed up here:
"Give me your soul and I will take care of you."
How many times will this model have to fail before people finally get it. When will people realized that the government cannot even take care of itself, let alone you. Governments exist to govern, not to be your nanny.
I don't want anyone taking care of me.
I don't want Social Security.
I don't want Medicare. It's a crime that Medicare is forced upon you when you turn 65. You cannot even opt out of it without losing coverage from your private health insurance.
I don't want to pay income taxes that nearly 50% of the population DOES NOT pay. At the very least, I should be paying the same percentage of my income now as I did when I was making 20k a year. I want me and my money to be left alone to prosper in the free-will, free-market society that the founders of this country intended to created.
I don't want to be forced to send my daughter to a government school based on my zip-code. I should be able to opt-out, take my property taxes, and put that towards sending my daughter to ANY school I choose based on whatever criteria I want. My daughter has Down Syndrome, and I cannot divert my taxes to pay for the private schooling she is going to require. Government school will want stick her in a room with kids having various disabilities and give them crayons to eat.
If I wanted to live in a socialized country, there are plenty of other countries in the world that would be more than happy to take my paycheck. I want to take care of myself and my family how I see fit. Not allowing me to do that is a violation of my civil and human rights.
This is why I will never vote for a Democrat at any level. If Republicans want to spy on me, let them. I have nothing to hide. Just let me live my life. Freedom is more important to me than privacy.
Republicans support the freedom that Democrats fear. I only wish Republicans would quit worrying about who marries whom and who kills their baby. If you want to kill your baby, fine. That's one less of your loser line to infect the world. If you want a gay marriage, great. That's one less child being born into this screwed up world. Stop worrying about what other people do with their lives...it doesn't have anything to do with you.
We need to libertarian wing of the right to take control of the party. The Losertarians need to get off their collective pompous horse-asses, dump their loser third-party and start making change in the mainstream party. There has been too much focus on these evangelical nutjobs. We need to lock them in the closet. They are morons that will vote Republican anyway. We all need to stop listening to all the political posturing and start using some common sense.
That's about all I have to say.
Re:Any examples in mind? (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly - every time a law comes up that is a bad law, particularly with regard to the constitution, which the president is personally sworn to defend, the veto should be used. So - for instance - the veto should have been used when the ex post facto law that felons, already convicted, could not own firearms, because this adds to their punishment after conviction and is manifestly unconstitutional. There are other ex post facto violations that should have been defended as well.
The constitution says that the feds can't tell the states what laws to make in general, outside of the bill of rights and some specifics about interstate commerce. One such example would be speed limits. The federal government created a bribery mechanism via legislation that says that states that have speed limits of such-and-such character will not receive federal highway funding; that's a classic "we are your completely mafia-tized government, welcome to the machine" and that should have been vetoed right back into the evil morass it came from. But like the habeas corpus problem, the sitting president at the time (Carter) was complicit in the wrongdoing, so obviously, the veto wouldn't be used, though it should be used.
There are older reasons to veto, such as suspension of habeas corpus; that's been in place what, 700 years or so?
There was the establishment of FISA - first we tap you, THEN we get permission - talk about your bass-ackwards "regard" for rights!
The veto should be used when a reasonable bill contains bullshit riders; the congress has a particularly distasteful way of sliding completely irrelevant legislation inside other legislation they know will pass, such as military finding, that then passes regardless of merit (and it usually has none, that's why it gets inserted in other bills w/o lube.)
The veto could be one of the bastions of protecting our freedoms, and as far as I am concerned, it should be. But it isn't. That's one of the problems with the system, and it is unsolvable because citizens aren't engaged in what is going on and will not hold politicians accountable for their actions and inactions. Presidents worrying about 2nd terms and political deals are a factor here as well. One term per president would erase that factor in a hurry, though so would honest, engaged, educated voting. Not that we have any chance of that.
Far too much bad law is made. The president could stop a lot of it, and could also force the bills that come out to be one-subject only by simply saying, I'm not going to allow you to hide irrelevant law inside must-pass bills. Do it over, and do it right.
Instead, vetos are part and parcel of the "deal" mode of doing business in Washington. I accord them little respect unless used to better the lot of the citizens, just as I accord no respect to laws that serve the hysteria of the moment rather than the long-term, constitutionally delimited legitimate role of government in our society.
Re:Did anybody read this? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 says that there are acceptable reasons to do that -- then the question is who decides those reasons. The point of FISA and the like are to make sure the person who wants to do the spying isn't the person who says it's okay to spy.
I think I'd rather have Congress doing the oversight, since they're liable in a very direct way, by not being reelected, for abuse. Secret courts and anonymous judges are less liable, and more likely to just go along with the requestor, but even that's better than the Administration's self-regulation.
But if the Administration says it has cause for spying, and Congress, or some reasonable subset of it, okays the decision, I can't see that there's any better system for oversight.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying we should get rid of the 2nd amendment, I'm just wondering why people consider it important as a deterrent to the government.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:1, Insightful)
I hardly doubt that the entire country will spontaneously gel together and rise up with their 2nd-amendment-approved handguns and rifles and take over the State when they finally get to the point where their civil liberties have been eroded beyond countenance. Hell, half the people who own the guns seem to be the very ones clamouring to kiss the assess of the people doing the erosion.
Why let it get to the point of civil war, requiring guns, and therefore citizens rising up against the machine-gun-armed military, before you do something about it?
IMHO, far more intelligent to attempt stop the erosion first, before worrying you won't have a gun to be able to stop the erosion. Not voting Hillary because she doesn't like your gun, even though she's fighting against that very erosion of rights, seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.