Rosenzweig Now Chairman of DHS Privacy Board 214
An anonymous reader writes "Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative lawyer and prominent proponent of the Pentagon's controversial Total Information Awareness project, has been
appointed the first chairman of the Department of Homeland Security's privacy board. This follows the appointment of an executive of Gator to the board. Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that, rather than viewing protection of privacy as priority, Rosenzweig 'tends to view privacy as something to be circumvented.' Are the foxes guarding the henhouse when it comes to government and privacy?"
Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Funny)
Why no, it seems that the Gator is guarding the henhouse in this case.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Along the lines of the ministry of love being where you go to get the living shit beat out of you it seems the ministry of privacy being formed in america is where all of your privacy will be stripped away.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Funny)
Man you're old. I can't remember anything earlier than '85 or so.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:4, Insightful)
The timeline of a board/commission/department/[whatever] that is supposed to deal with a problem:
1. Concerned citizens see a problem/crises and demand that their reps "Do something about it!"
2. The legislature creates a [whatever] to "Do something about it!"
3. The concerned citizens see that something has been "Done" and get bored with the issue, moving on to another issue that's now in the news.
4. The new [whatever] looks around for "experts" in the area they are supposed to be dealing with.
5. The affected industry, ngos and other special interest groups are the ones who actually have the "experts" to supply.
6. They also actually have a stake in what the [whatever] does, so they stick around and do whatever is necessary to control the [whatever]. Since no one else cares, they typically gain control within 0-3 years of [whatever's] existance.
7. ??? (Traditional
8. Profit! (for the special interest groups, because now they can use [whatever] to stick it to any new competition and preserve and expand their own power.)
Take a look at just about any [whatever] that is "supposed" to be regulating something and you'll pretty much see the above pattern.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it's... (Score:2)
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds of when during the election Bush "said" he wanted to reinstate the draft. I dont care which way you swing, I just care when mindless bant
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't remember anyone claiming that Bush said that. As I understood it, people were saying that his actions were going to make it inevitable that a draft would be necessary. Do you have any references which say otherwise? I'm genuinely curious.
-Chris
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:2)
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000140.htm l [diggersrealm.com]
Never underestimate the power of lies. How many people actually believed this and voted for Kerry? (I am not saying voting for kerry is a bad thing, I think he was a good candidate.) I am simply stating how powerful disinformation is. One of the unfortunate sideaffects of free speech I suppose. I wouldnt be suprised if election laws were harsher wrt dis
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:2)
has some press clippings about Bush appointees, and the controversy surrounding them.
I trust that you are not being disingenuous - you don't have to replace every employee of an agency / company to provoke change - just ones in key positions.
It's quite obvious that the Bush Administration has been quite vigorous in this regard.
Shades of "Fahrenheit 451" (Score:2)
an oxymoron. They are in charge of the non-
existent seaport security (w/ recent incursions
by Chinese stowaways in container cargo), with
nearly non-existent border security (w/ 1-1/2
million illegal aliens entering the USA each year,
up by 50% from before 9-11-2001), and with nearly
non-existent enforcement of immigration laws (28
million illegal aliens in the USA hired illegally
by USA employers).
We have illegal aliens working for the TSA (Trans-
potation Security
Re:Why do you expect the gov't to protect privacy? (Score:2)
Maybe because they are there to serve the people and not the other way around?
Maybe because it is in the spirit of the constitution which they promissed to serve and protect?
> And your bashing of Bush may have gotten you mod points, but the Democrats are no slouches in the corporate malfeasance department. Terry McAuliff was up to his neck in Global Crossing, and the first person Ken
I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
Is the fox guarding the henhouse?!!?
What're all these damned chicken feathers doing everywhere!? Ay! What's all this bloody mess here too?
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop thinking like you're in the 20th century. It's a brave new world and white is the new black.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
Doesn't this reek of Orwellian doublespeak? I mean - the privacy board represents a group of people who want to circumvent privacy. The PATRIOT act is the most un-patriotic legislation government action since COINTELPRO. Etc.
Yuck!
See This [thecarpetb...report.com] for a fun look at Bush tactics.
April 02, 2005
Build your own Bush administration! It's easy and fun!
Something has been wrong, for a very long time... (Score:4, Informative)
"more privacy in the form of total surveillance" --> HUAC, McCarthy et al.?
"government transparency in the form of increased classification of documents, and high moral standards in the form of flagrant House ethics rule violations" --> Nixon?
"smaller government in the form of increased federal spending" AND "isolationist foreign policy in the form of overseas force projection" --> Reagan?
American conservatives have this wonderful way of completely ignoring their own philosophy.
(not actually anonymous; one more observation) (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, one more observation on this topic: conservatives tried to excuse all of the above inconsistencies by saying thay they were for the sake of fighting communism. What are we doing today to keep the charade going? Fighting terrorism! That's really the most relevant parallel between 1984 and today's situation: just like Ingsoc, the U.S. always needs an enemy.
Stop calling Bush people conservatives (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who considered themselves conservative before the religious right got involved, these people are an affront to true conservatives. Changing the ethics rules to favor one of their own crooked leadership, labeling someone who volunteered for service in Viet Nam "Hanoi John" because he later protested a loser war while promoting a dope-smoking, draft-dodging, Conneticut Yankee pretending to be a Texan, running up record federal deficits, and passing legislation to try and override state courts are all actions real conservatives should find hugely revolting.
Conservatives are not your enemy. The Republican party pays lip service to its conservative roots the same way it pays lip service to the religious right. The Republicans are all about money and power at a time the Democrats have gone completely nutless. A lot of times these days you're picking the party that sickens you the least.
And what's with the religious right? Why aren't all those right wing protestants having a fit about Bush kneeling in front of the Pope's body? Hello, McFly! All the world wondering after the beast...any of that ringing any bells? Or are you just all up about gays getting married these days?
Re:Stop calling Bush people conservatives (Score:2)
See, the problem is that you're not really a conservative at all; you're a libertarian who's suffering from an identity crisis. It was the same for me; I used to think I was a liberal, but I've come to realize I'm a libertarian too.
Conservatism, as originally understood, favored government imposition of social mores, limited individual rights, government collusion with (or ownership of) business, and general hostili
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lower taxes, state's rights, and free trade have never been considered traditional liberal values, at least not any time in the last 50 years, so it's hardly surprising that you find liberal politicians working against those goals. And since when have liberal politicians made proclamations of personal morality a primary message of their campaigns?
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
I get the sense that conservatives are all for more privacy for big business, but they could care less about the rights of the average citizen.
Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:3, Insightful)
The political landscape can be dumbed down to a simple Cartesian coordinate system: personal freedom on one axis, economic freedom on another.
Whereas a liberal will tend to deprive you of economic freedom in order redistribute wealth and fund social programs, a conservative will tend to deprive you of personal freedom in order to control your behavior
Re:Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:2)
Then why is the ACLU considered a liberal organization by most? Which philosophy gives you a better chance at:
1. Dying with dignity.
2. Decriminalzing non-addictive substances.
3. Ensuring the rights of unpopular groups (minorities, gays, atheists, etc).
Which one has historically? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't start with a C.
Re:Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:2)
Then why is the ACLU considered a liberal organization by most? Which philosophy gives you a better chance at:
Because the ACLU has a long history of being more interested in certain freedoms that others.
Which philosophy gives you a better chance at:
Re:Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:2)
You're alone. (Score:2)
With regard to Pournelle's Axes,
a) there's no fun test to take
b) you "think" you know where you stand already, so "finding" yourself on Pournelle's coordinate system isn't very interesting
c) And may I say, Pournelle pisses me off, and so does his militaristic fiction. Anyone who can "solve" a planet-wide social problem by killing an entire stadium full of malcontents, even in a work of fiction, s
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
As we can see, they're only for cutting so-called liberal programs. States' rights have seemed to lose style because those Massachusetts liberals can let gays marry (the horror!).
Whenever any party is in the minority, they rail against any expansion of federal government powers because they know it won't be expanding in the way they like. As soon as the tides turn, government expansion is a nessary evil.
Which raises the questions (Score:5, Insightful)
When will people start leaving their parties (Republican or Democrat) when their parties move away from what they believe?
The answer is probably when there is a no longer a two party system. The Republicans can treat their conservative base with contempt, and then still get their support by fear: "look at what the alternative would be!" The Democrats do the same thing on their side of the fence.
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:3, Insightful)
I've gotten the distinct impression that US politics, in conjunction with the media, has become such that any issue is now a "black" (x)or "white" issue. IOW, it's easier to pick a view on a seemingly dichotomous issue rather than have to confront and think about the grey tones of real life.
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:2)
I've never found this argument at all convincing. It usually starts with the complaint that the Democrats aren't socialist enough. Fortunately, this isn't Europe and most people here agree that a regulated capitalist system like we have now is pretty close to ideal, if imperfect in a few places. Within those lines, there are huge disagreements that actually do affect
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:2)
I think you have a fair point.There are multiple factors at play here. There are indeed differences between Republicans and Democrats, however they have to play a game in which they maintain their base and attract voters in the middle. Obfuscation of differences are an important tool. If you didn't see this strategy at work in the last election, you weren't paying much attention.
What drives the Republican spending b
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think many people would advocate this position, fortunately.
By some interpretations of the word "conservative", this is probably true. The conservatives who've become disaffected with the administration and its policies have spoken out against the expansion of executive power, new law enforcement capabilities, the growth in spending, and the activist foreign policy. All of these might be considered anat
ImaLamer on Labels (Score:2)
I think, and this has been said, that the word liberal needs to be re0wned. Labels help -
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention pornography, sex toys, gay rights, minority rights, etc.
Conservatism is the defense of the status quo. Today and in the past. Anything else is sophistry and revisionism.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
You're confusing, intentionally or not, conservatism [reference.com]'s multiple definitions. Republicans (who call themselves conservatives) today do not want the status quo - that's why they passed the USA PATRION Act, appoint privacy advocates who don't believe in privacy, etc. Another case in point: Terry Schiavo. The status quo said that it was up to the state courts. Most of today's conservatives tho
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
It seems the dividing lines have been redrawn... and it looks like it's now in crayon.
The "Conservatives" still favor privacy and minimal intervention *if* you are a corporation. If you're an individual, you need to be watched to make sure you don't endanger
That should be NEO-conservative most likely... (Score:2)
I think both camps are beginning to realize this.
Check this out [checksbalances.org] Both sides [checksbalances.org] coming together against the Patriot Act.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
I see in lots of the comments already a strong awareness of what is happening in American politics. Outright thugs with a lust for wealth and power are getting away with wrapping themselves in flags and crosses, because reluctance to change views is a basic feature of conservative thinking. Sticking with the tried and true, not changing horses in mid-stream, weathering tough times with your beliefs intact -- these are sensible, down-to-earth attitudes that work if you have hon
Sir Humphrey Appleby (Score:3, Insightful)
Quote Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister:- I need to know everything in order to know what I need to know
The beaurocrat's excuse for invasion of privacy never realy changes.
Re:Sir Humphrey Appleby (Score:2)
Write and get help! (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I look at this issue like I do with European software patents. If ordinary people don't stand up and lobby their government representative, then nothing will change. If you believe strongly about this, then try to do something about it. Make your views known
Re:Write and get help! (Score:5, Insightful)
When will you folks learn. In the US, our reps won't listen unless there's a huge PAC donation included with your letter.
Re:Write and get help! (Score:2)
Yes, it's hard to compete with PACs. But remember that PAC dollars are used to buy, for the most part, TV ad time. And those ads are used to get votes.
Rather than give up, let's get off our asses and organize and get ready for the next election.
Don't just write your Congressman that you think it's a pathetic joke that a TIA supporter his chair of the DHS Privacy Board -- get the sig
Re:Write and get help! (Score:2)
Re:Write and get help! (Score:2)
Unfortunatley, you'll probably get what you deserve.
Re:Write and get help! (Score:2)
Re:Write and get help! (Score:3, Interesting)
Paul Rosenzweig for beginners (Score:4, Informative)
On the Patriot Act:
The 9/11 Commission has emphasized the importance of the Patriot Act and considers it to be an essential weapon in the global war on terrorism. Prior to September 11, there was a wall of legal and regulatory policies that prevented effective sharing of information between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Read More [mithuro.com]
Paul Rosenzweig On Transparency:
After all, why do we seek transparency in the first instance? Not for its own sake. Without need, transparency is little more than voyeurism. Rather, the reason for transparency is oversight - Read More [mithuro.com]
They're defending America! (Score:5, Funny)
They have selected these Patriots to ensure that there is no risk of Privacy invading The United States of America. Over their dead bodies, there will be none of this Privacy in America.
Re:They're defending America! (Score:2)
I guess the travel/transportation costs will be lower than shipping an army over to the Middle East. Oh, wait, there's one already there...
Re:They're defending America! (Score:2)
Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy is something that is entirely the opposite of the DHS's goal - therefore, isn't it obvious that they will hire experts in how to remove privacy? The DHS's privacy department isn't about protecting privacy (because that would be counter to the DHS's mission) but rather how to remove privacy so the DHS can do its job. Of course they will mask this in doublespeak - just like what was called the department of war half a century ago got renamed to the department of defence.
I am really worried (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Oh really? Cause that is a complete bull-shit statement. We've mainly operated at a deficit since 1960 - but not always. Either way, trade deficit isn't the only way to measure the economy.
ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit [slashdot.org]ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit>
Additionally, the Bush administration is not trying to shut the borders
Sure, the Canadian border.
ahref=http://www.obviousnews.com/breakingnews/stor ies/obvi [slashdot.org]
Prescott Bush! (Score:2, Informative)
and?
Prescott Bush!!!
Whenever I post and that name is included I get labeled a troll! Must be a filter or something? A perl script?
Re: (Score:2)
Americans Funded Nazi War Machine (Score:4, Informative)
Good point. Indeed, it's worse than that -- much worse.
Who funded the Nazi war machine? Prescott Bush [wikipedia.org], among others. Prescott and his partners made a ton of money banking for the Nazis -- investing in the Wermacht -- throughout the 1930s. Not illegal at the time. A brutal demonstration of man's inhumanity to man, perhaps; but not illegal at the time.
Herr Bush, of course, is father and grandfather, respectively, to two generations of American Presidents (and one generation of CIA Director [google.com]).
See also From Hitler to MX [google.com], documenting other examples of 1930's American investment in the Nazi war machine (and how, after the war, American-back ventures survived unbombed, while their competitors where destroyed). Companies involved include General Electric (sold advanced submarine tech for U-boats), and one or more (I forget which) of the big oil firms.
War is -- dammit -- good for business.
-kgj
Economy 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
If a country sells you ore for 1 million dollars, the value of that million dollars is _only_ what they can buy in return with it. No more, no less. If they can't buy much, then they're giving away their ore to you for free.
So I wouldn't put much hope in an economy that _only_ exports cash. That's an economy that in reality exports _nothing_.
If all you export is printed bits of paper, expect the value of those to plummet very very fast.
The dollar until now did have the saving grace of being perceived as _the_ international standard, and as something worth having reserves of. But again, on the assumption that they can at some point buy stuff with those dollars.
As that perception starts to fade, well, you're already seeing the effects. A huge trade deficit == a fast drop in currency value, until the value of _real_ exports matches that in imports. If you ever wondered why the dollar took a nose dive recently, now you know why: because of that trade defficit.
Want to export even more money? Well, then be prepared for the dollar value to fall even more.
Just keep it up. By the time your salary will be worth a tenth of what it's worth today, well, maybe you'll see what was wrong with that policy.
"Countries don't refuse to do business with other countries because they don't like them much."
True. But they might limit how much they're willing to sell you, based on how much you can actually afford to buy. And by "afford", I mean the value of your _exports_.
"Money is money"
Precisely because of that. What they're interested is what you can get for that money, not how fast you can print bits of paper.
"America is now and will always be a huge market"
China and India are both even bigger markets, and you don't see them being able to afford the same level of imports as you do.
A huge market that can't pay is not much of a market.
Re: (Score:2)
Bordes completely shut?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bordes completely shut?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am really worried (Score:2)
Hey! thats the country I've chosen to flee to! find your own damn country!
wanna share a cab to the airport?
Re:I am really worried (Score:2, Informative)
The current administration has no respect for laws and the constitution. They've said as much.
When have they said as much? They seem to have tremendous respect for the law . . . they simply interpret it different than many other people. If they didn't respect it, they would even bother use try to interpret it.
We are going to see Americans having as much trouble getting back into the States as foreigners do. (ie. you won't be able to get ba
Re:I am really worried (Score:2)
You can find out aere [immigration.govt.nz]
Re:I am really worried (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't that interesting; you've hit on one of those inner conflicts that the Repubs are grappling with. On the one hand, their socially conservative, xenophobic base wants to keep all of those dirty brown people on the other side of the wall. On the other, their conservative corporate base wants a big flood of Cheap Surplus Labor to keep the domestic brand from getting too uppity. One side supplies
Re:I am really worried (Score:2)
Freedom is Slavery? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way things are going in the western world at the moment I do fear that we are sleep walking towards some kind of Orwellian nightmare. We face a determined foe who are willing to die for what they believe in. Yet we are willing to throw aside our own hard won values of freedom and justice in the interest of "safety".
Freedom is Slavery was a propaganda slogan from the book 1984, designed to keep the masses happy with being oppressed. Every time I hear Tony Blair or George Bush reducing our rights to "protect freedom" I'm reminded of this.
Not sleepwalking, an illusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll give you a quote:
"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." --Hermann Goering
See, here's the real lie. People believe they are protecting the values, not throwing them away. Of course the original quote was about war, now it is about terror.
"Pacifists" are opponents of the politic. In this context, civil rights activists. They get discredited like dreamers, idealists which will expose the country to danger just like pacifists.
"Lack of patriotism" is of course a good mix of nationalism (American/Non-american), racism (Caucasian/Arab) and religion (Christian/Muslim). It plays on basic "Principles are fine, but now we have to protect our own" self-preservation.
Finally, "exposing the country to danger" is no longer about war, it is even "better". With war, you always know roughly who, where and how it will play out. With terror, the "danger" is everywhere, all the time and invisible. How can you argue that you are NOT exposing it to danger?
Noone dares speaks of such things. It is not "politically correct" to quote Nazi leaders, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and other examples of people that have manipulated great crowds. Naturally, we don't want to inspire more. But it also means people are oblivious to the fact that they are being manipulated. It cuts both ways.
Kjella
my buddy ben... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ben Franklin
Re:Freedom is Slavery? (Score:2)
Or, maybe the real problem is that in our Orwellian (near-) future, the people won't be given the bread?
if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:5, Informative)
Might be a good idea to contact your senators [senate.gov] and representatives [house.gov] too.
Contact the DHS privacy office, your senators (Score:2)
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a clue, folks... most Congressmen do listen. If you call them, if you write them, your opinion is taken into consideration. Even if there is no money attached. Do corporations hav
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:2)
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony is that this is true exactly to the extent that we believe it to be true, and are willing to act on our beliefs. Cynical helplessness always plays into the hands of established power.
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:2)
Isn't it cool how "liberal" has become the new "Commie"?
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:4, Informative)
One word: ACLU [aclu.org]
Proud dues-paying member since 2003.
One of the few organizations with the clout to truly (and positively) influence policy when it comes to these matters. You can be a member for less than $50/year. The min membership might even be half that much, IIRC.
not if you don't say anything (Score:2)
And you know this because of all the letters you've written that they've ignored?
Not trying to defend DHS, but the idea that we say nothing because they will ignore it anyway is pretty pathetic.
Hiding stuff. (Score:5, Interesting)
The real need is to roll back the ability of the mob to make your life miserable if you choose to think or do something that is unconventional.
In the long run, which is going to leave us in a better position? Should we be fighting to maintain privacy in the face of increasingly efficient snooping, or fighting for freedom of thought and action?
Not that anyone's really going sacrifice much to achieve either of those goals . . . .
Re:Hiding stuff. (Score:2)
Or merely the possibility of a future threat (which possibility is, of course, a threat itself). What if some Red State government decided to start a registry of all gay residents, to no avowed purpose or intent? Should gays then not feel threatened? How about registering Jews in Germany in the 1930s? The real issue is not that information of this sort should (or can) be kept secret from everybody (i.e., abso
Re:Hiding stuff. (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree.
Consenting adults should not be legally prohibited from engaging in any activity or speech they want, whatsoever, the only exception being to protect some overriding societal interest.
Unfortunately this principle isn't explicitly stated in the US Constitution, so instead an implicit right to privacy has been used in its place.
Why do we need limitations surveillance and the collection of information? I don't mind if I have to withstand peer pressure in order to act, think, and speak as I lik
Foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Funny)
Guarding is a cover story. The foxes are actually impregnating the hens -- breeding strange fox/chicken hybrids -- merging government and privacy into a single organism.
I, for one, do not welcome our privacy-sucking overlords.
-kgj
Re:Foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:2)
I used to think Democracy meant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- not the mass penetration of citizens by the throbbing truncheon of Total Information Awareness.
-kgj
NEO-conservative or conservative? (Score:2)
Just like I would describe myself as a classical liberal [wikipedia.org]as opposed to conservative [wikipedia.org].
Americaphage (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Americaphage (Score:2, Insightful)
No,no,no,
this guy LOVES AMERICA!
Corporate America that is....
If You Haven't Got The Picture By Now... (Score:2)
you're too moronic to ever get it.
"Homeland Security" has NOTHING whatever to do with either the "homeland" or YOUR security.
I remember privacy... I think. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't remember, but I think when I was a kid (20 years ago) didn't we have the right to privacy here in America. In fact wasn't this always one of the key items that made America so great?
Conservative Contradiction (Score:3, Insightful)
I Agree with Rosenzweig (Score:3, Interesting)
when he says
I think he's right.A little less privacy at the highest levels of government and in the corporate ranks would do wonders for increasing their dismal reputations for hiding incompetance and fraudulent behavior.
Perhaps this new found penetration of privacy could be applied to the Vice President's meetings with business officials to come up with an energy policy. God knows we're ready for one.
So this is how the real axis of evil looks like. (Score:2)
Re:I'm glad i don't live in U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad i don't live in U.S. (Score:2)
I had to snort at that ridiculous statement. Remember the IRA during its "glory days"? They may not have killed as many people in total, but given the attacks over many years it's no wonder there's surveillance everywhere (not that it's been necessarily effective--change in political landscape has far more to do with the lack of attacks these days).
Stress (Score:2)
Re:2005 != 1984 (Score:2)