ACLU Reacts to Privacy Concerns 78
nettle writes "Back in September I began a series of commentaries about one person's experience signing up as a new member of the ACLU. I'd used their website to sign up, and was shocked to find my mailbox full of junk parcels, flyers, and personalized merchandise from dozens of nonprofit organizations like People for the American Way, Sierra Club, Americans for This, Americans for That, yadda yadda. I complained to the ACLU, having suspected that they had given out my contact info. So I wrote about the situation on my Nettle.com blog here and here and began a public correspondence with Anthony Romero, Exec Dir of ACLU, and Nadine Stossen, President of ACLU. Nadine promised they'd take action. I told her if they fixed the signup page on ACLU's website so that people could opt-out of ACLU's personal-info-sharing, I'd renew my membership. Well, Nadine kept her end of the bargain. Here's a screen capture of their new signup page. And my check to the ACLU goes out in today's mail! Blogs DO make a difference."
yes, blogs do make a difference. (Score:1)
google watch blogometer [google-watch.org]
Re:yes, blogs do make a difference. (Score:2)
There's some point where you have to realize that people aren't going to your site because it sucks [namebase.org].
And when it comes to blogs, it seems that now if you even mention Google on LiveJournal you get some random person you don't know evangelizing their favorite Google alternative, claiming that Google gave them pop-up ads, banners, herpes, or whatever.
lesson learned by the ACLU... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:lesson learned by the ACLU... (Score:2)
George Bush was a hippie ?????!!!!!
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1, Offtopic)
Anyway, I just wanted to point out your statement for what it is: a lie.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
It's exactly the sort of simple-minded intellectual bukkake that I'd expect from a right winger.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1)
See? Everyone can do the personal attacks.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
You're obviously flustered because I pointed out the typical lies of the far right - in a thread entitled "Hypocrites" no less.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
Besides, this is about spam, from the ACLU! I'm tired of spam in general, and the less electronic waste I get the better. So funny to see spam marginalized by petty bickering. This must be why we never get any Anti-Spam laws passed, cau
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
I'm just pointing out that they are way off base with regard to the facts.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
Another disgusting lie from the perverted zombie hive-mind of the far-right.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1, Interesting)
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
Sounds like they don't
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
ACLU opposed to Constitutional rights (Score:1, Informative)
Imagine if someone went through the sophistry of "Free speech is not a right of the individual, but is the right of a well-organized media collective".
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1)
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
Would Jefferson, Madison, et al even recognize the government they created if they could see it now? About the only thing in the Bill of Rights you don't see violated routinely is the bit about quartering soldiers.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
In the October 1994 issue of Reason [reason.com], ACLU president Nadine Strossen said:
On their Q&A web page about public fun [aclu.org]
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
I haven't seen the movie you've mentioned, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's different than you have stated. In other words, because it suits you, it's likely that you are a liar. Could be wrong, but not likely.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:3, Informative)
1) Courtney Love was not receiving an award, she was PRESENTING an award and making a speech about freedom of the press at the event.
2) The filmmaker RUSHED ONTO THE STAGE after her speech and started asking why she was talking about freedom of the press. Sure, it might have been an ironic choice, but WTF was the filmmaker doing rushing the
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1)
Well, yeah, I might not recall a movie I watched months ago correctly. I'm a broke college student busy studying for 18 hours worth of finals. I have better things to do than do hours of research to write a /. post.
1) Courtney Love was not receiving an award, she was PRESENTING an award and making a speech about freedom of the press at the event.
Oh, wow, that makes it SO much bette
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2)
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:2)
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:3, Insightful)
The mark of a good government is how well they protect and respect the rights of everyone.
The religious right is always tromping on the rights of minority religions, and nonbelievers. They can't do that legally, and they persist in trying. The ACLU rightly stops them whenever they can.
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1, Insightful)
They don't persecute mainstream relegions. They just do their best to stop the government from passing laws that further entangle church and state -- is this what you mean by persecute? Otherwise, you and I must have a different definition of persecution...because most of these laws ("Under God" in pledge, Ten Commandments in public bui
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1)
Your comments in response to the "Mixed Feelings" post lead me to infer that you are also part of the problem.
Having "Under God" in the pledge does not force you to have "something" to do with my mainstream religion. Forcing you to recite the Pledge and including those words in it would impinge on your rights to Freedom of Religion. Also, the Bill of Rights guarantees you the Freedom of Religion, it does not guaratee that you can live without contact with another religion, as your comment "my right to h
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:2)
Yeah, me, too! Being a white middle class heterosexual male, I just wish all those other people would just shut the fuck up and deal with their marginal positions in society. Whine whine whine: "Why can't I have a job? Why can't I have health care? Why can't I have a place to live and enough to eat?" Because you're not in the all powerful
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)
At worst, they argue for separation of church and state, which is part of the Constitution's featureset, if you weren't aware. You want to run a religion, mainstream or not, well it's up to you to seek funding and favor from the people, not the government.
Funding of religion education from my tax dollars? Over my dead body.
"Minimize the majority to accomodate the minority."
Uh, propaganda anybody? Until recently, the minority was pretty much under the bootheel of the majority, and it still ain't grand being non-white / non-christian in the U.S.
If ACLU and other defenders of liberty relax on this, how quickly do you think the race back to the bottom will begin? It's already underway, as the thinly-veiled efforts of Bush and friends show us.
You've been listening too much to the tranked-up Mister Limbaugh. Do some reading. Get out into the world. Visit the favelas of Brasil, or take a job as a busboy or dishwasher, and find out just how difficult life is for the half that wasn't born "the majority."
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1)
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:3, Insightful)
http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html
Google for: congress law respecting religion -and you'll get many articles explaining the context and limits the First Amendment have placed upon our government. The Religion Clauses do, in fact, establish a clear boundary between the re
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1, Insightful)
Um, no.
Fundamentalism is not the majority religion in the USA. Christianity is (currently) the majority religion in the USA. Fundamentalist Christianity is actually a minority within Christianity. They're just really high profile, and purport to represent more than they actually do. Kinda like
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1, Informative)
The closest it gets to it is Article VI, Section III "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.". Other than that, there is only the broadly worded first amendment...and it's worded "Congress shall make no law respecting an esthablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...". This means that there cannot b
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1)
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1)
And while you feel Moses is right next to the others you mentioned, Moses is about ten times bigger than the others there. And the artist specifically stated it is because they feel God influenced them as well, but they did not have the direct line that Moses did.
But hey, you can believe what you believe. In fact, our being a Christian nation is what allows that to take place. And that fact has been mentioned in severa
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:2)
When you say seperation OF church and state, you are not saying seperation FROM church. Just because you may not agree with the religious foundation that this country WAS based upon. When there isn't much else in your life BUT politics, war, and religion YOU CAN'T say that
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1)
I never expected to get any positive feed back on that comment on /., but I think I have been doing my reading and I certainly think that the sentiments of Americans are not represented by their government and that the ACLU has historically allied with courts who percieve themselves as legislatures to force the will of a few bitter folks on the whole of society.
I certinaly will agree that the US is a fantastically successful experiment and I dearly love it here. I was not refering to a poor racial minori
re: opt-out at nonprofits (Score:5, Informative)
I worked for several years at a well-known nationwide nonprofit charity, maintaining a donor database with an address list in the low 6 figures in length. For a variety of reasons, we had a lot of ongoing technical problems, especially when it came to address sharing with other nonprofits - long stories aside, there came a day when I was digging into the workings of an update query which effectively implemented the "Don't share my address" checkbox on the donation form. Turns out, for at least the past 3 years (starting prior to my tenure), it had been set up backwards. When I fixed it, some 16,000 records got updated... (and who knows, maybe the correction eventually propagated around the nonprofit community's mismash of list-exchange systems??)
My point is, once your information gets out, consider it out for good. Everything from fuzzy wording of a privacy agreement to out-and-out unethical behavior (either as company policy, or due to a disgruntled employee or hacker attack) could cause your data to go where you don't want it to - or, it might just be a technical glitch somewhere deep in an under-tested program handled by an under-trained user.
Re: opt-out at nonprofits (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: opt-out at nonprofits (Score:1)
That was supposed to be the case in our database as well. Again - good intentions, backed by inadequately trained people...
You start getting snail mail too (Score:1)
Looks like most nonprofit groups that rely on donations share addresses.
Get real (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad press has always prompted organizations to right their wrongs, especially guys like the ACLU whose entire reasons for existence are moral in nature. I think you would expect them to change their ways if you point out their hypocrisy in a public forum, regardless of whether it's in a blog, a newspaper, or a billboard. This is by no means a "win" for blogs, it's just common sense.
Just tired of people thinking "blogs" are something revolutionary. Nobody really cares.
What???? (Score:2)
What I like... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good job (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Good job (Score:3, Informative)
I suggest you read up a bit before making uninformed statements.
Re:Good job (Score:1)