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 Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.'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?
Meaning what one says... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was the American Constitution Society after all...
Wrong way of thinking, but a good start (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
her idea of privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Ron Paul? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:3, Interesting)
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 seems wrong. When this is determined as a deciding factor for a vote, it will be yet another never fixed issue that gets people elected. 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 and green lantern were some computer searches calls and emails for buzzwords then tells a live agent when something is found. Of course that was her husband and not her. But I would suggest that she could have been more vocal about it back then instead of running the race with it now. And YES, I believe this question is more or less a trial balloon to see if it is good enough to campaign on. But this doesn't surprise me much. Slashdot was more or less a republican bashing ground lass election.
Might guarnatee my vote too... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:but but but (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ron Paul? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It would sway my vote, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yeah, but where does she... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it go beyond just "Keep mature games out of the hands of minors"?
Because if thats all it is I refer you to:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/03/20 [penny-arcade.com]
Re:Meaning what one says... (Score:3, Interesting)
My perfect world...
I should be able to go to a credit agency and apply for a credit ID. I can provide as much or as little information about myself. If I provide little information, I would have a low credit score until I proved my creditworthiness. If I provide more information, I can get a better score. The point is it is my choice. And when someone hijacks my credit ID, I call the credit agnecy and cancel the account.
Businesses would use your score much as they do now. People with good records would get better deals. People with low scores would pay more. But the most important thing is that businesses would not be making the assumption that I am who I say I am. They would be more careful in how they do business.
This illustrates the weakness of having a 1 ID system. The system is set up to trust it, and if you can forge or steal that one ID, you can cause a lot of damage to people and business.
Same with medical information. I should be able to sign up for a medical ID from a service company and provide what information I choose. But when the government starts forcing its use and linking medical information to credit information all under one National ID, you have to wonder why.
Another way of looking at it is - If it is such a good idea, then everyone will choose to participate. Otherwise, let it die.
I spoke with her... (Score:2, Interesting)
take it with a grain of salt as anybody can say anything, but to me, she seemed sincere.
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Don't be fooled by Bush (Score:4, Interesting)
Not hated, more like disappointed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The right to privacy is underrated (Score:3, Interesting)
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 deterrent to the government to piss you off (how happy are you now?)
Riders (Score:3, Interesting)
Man, could you imagine if we got a president who refused to sign any bills that contained riders (good or not) that had little or nothing to do with said bill? That'd be a sight! He/she could just say, "I'm not signing any bills that contain unrelated riders," and then keep that promise. Sure, it'd result in government getting "shut down" for a while (not entirely a bad thing in and of itself), but it's hard to imagine that the president would be the one getting the backlash from that. Far too many US citizens have no idea how many stupid riders are added to our bills.
Other than the riders, most of what you cite are examples where the president is deliberately complicit. My question (which you did partially answer with the riders) is centered more around a case where the president chose not to veto a bill that he disagreed with. The initial premise, afterall, was that the president had little to do with what bills get passed. Surely this is true if the president actually agrees with Congress (e.g., PATRIOT ACT), but if the president disagrees, the veto can be used either directly or as a bargaining tool.
Huh? (Score:1, Interesting)
And just how is that different from right now? Well, except that all those guns don't seem to be helping anyone even in the slightest. Moreover, just who do you plan to shoot, anyhow? Unless there's an organized military force at your doorstep, exactly what CAN you do that wouldn't involve murdering innocent people?
Perchance you should think this through a bit more, outside of fantasy scenarios where you're part of a rebel force fighting against some unspecified corrupt military made up of people you've never met.
That aside, I don't exactly trust Hillary. Talk is cheap; sponsor or introduce some good bills to prove it.