US Congress Committee Talking About Privacy

rm007 writes "The US House of Representatives Judicial Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is holding hearings on the Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security and approved the Defense of Privacy Act. The DHS Privacy Officer hearings are to examine how well the incumbent, Nuala O'Connor Kelly, is doing and whether the statute creating the position sufficiently addresses concerns about the handling of personally identifiable information. This should be worth watching. Wired News has an article that covers both of these as does GovExec.com, a newsletter for senior Federal employees."

Comments

The fact we're talking about the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

means the terrorists - that is the US government and it's allies - have already won.

Read some Chomsky if you don't agree that they're terrorists. No tedious ad-hominems - rebuttals, please.

You might like to start with how the unprovoked attack on the pharmeceutical factory in Sudan was NOT an act of terrorism.

Re:The fact we're talking about the issue

[SphynxSR]

That was Clinton(Democrat) not Bush. He was probably getting hummer at the time he made the call. I think he was trying to make his load hit at the sametime as the missles. Part of that problem is that he destroy the CIA and such, so of course his INTEL was crap and we have been paying for that mistake ever since. What and see when Keery gets into office. The US won't go anywhere do anything. That should make a lot of people happy. Put people in office are not willing to make the judgement call. Make the US, like the UN.

Re:The fact we're talking about the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

> Referring to hundreds of deaths as a "good kicking"? I don't care what you think
> of the US, or the troops stationed there. A loss of a life is a loss of a life.
> On both sides. It's tragic and deserves a term of some seriousness.

It's a needless, immoral and possibly illegal occupation. A loss of a life is NOT simply a loss of the life, if by that you're implying that each is as sad as the next. Clearly, the death of a Nazi soldier or civilian-murderer is less sad than the death or a nurse, or journalist, or artist. In my opinion. Sure, some of the soldiers in Iraq might be there with the best intentions, but basically they are there to do the bidding of the current US administration, which has bad intentions.

No, I've never been in a war. I dispute that that has any relevance to my right to make an observation, however - indeed, to suggest that I have no such right is stupid. Feel free to make your case to that extent, but I've not heard a convincing argument for it.

Re:The fact we're talking about the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not suggesting that you can't have an opinion. I'm suggesting that people's opinions about things often change after they've actually expierienced something.

Re:The fact we're talking about the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

---
And how we getting are asses kicked over there. I came came back and it is much improved from the days leading up to and follow the DEFEAT of the IRAQI government(not on the people). Maybe you should try and listen.
---

I'm listening. Check this out:
http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm

It's improving? For whom? You see a pattern there? When will it stop? Given that there is simply no problem in obtaining whatever weapons (certainly light arms) you want in that region, and that `explosives` are basically fertilizers and other readily available material, the answer to that one has to be `whenever the people fighting decide to stop`. Which will be when the Americans leave, and not a day sooner. Iraq is currently a magnet for disaffected Muslims from around the world.

There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem here is that there is no Constitutional right to privacy.

Sure, some use amendments to imply one, but it just is not there, and the same amendments can be used to imply such things as a supposed "right to security" which can erode a supposed "right to privacy".

Time for an amendment.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[John Seminal]

I disagree. I think when you take the whole of the bill of rights and the constitution, there is a right to privacy the courts have recognized in the past. I do not want to look it up, but wording in one case was somthing like: "the courts must defend against the long arm of the government peering into the circle of individual liberty". If anyone wants, I can look up the exact case. If we are really free, then we have a right to privacy as that is a product of freedom. There is no right at all for someone to invade another persons house, papers, posessions, or the like without a court approving it. We have the right to form private groups, as the right to associate. So I see it very different than those who will let government take away our rights. I know those rights exsist and am not willing to let go of them.

It is only when government overstepps its boundry does the right of privacy dissapear, and often it is like the frog telling of the ecological disaster to come. Remember Hoover and his FBI? They were the ones who tapped the phones of political groups. And remember Nixon?

Defend your liberty or lose it.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Joel Carr]

Perhaps it is time for an amendment, but given the way things seem to be headed at the moment, do you think any amendment would be made in the right direction?

---

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[BranMan]

Actually, the Constitution is very specific - I paraphrase: "Any right not enumerated is considered to belong to the people". Since privacy is NOT mentioned, it cannot be infringed by the Federal Gov. - the people have a right to privacy.

The framers, and the drafters of the "Bill of Rights" did not want to fall into the trap of forgetting something, so they made sure they had a safety net in place. They weren't dummies.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[John Seminal]

I think it is the will of government and the will of those in power to take away as many freedoms and rights as they can. I doubt you will ever have the conditions again which formed our country. Back then, you had people who experianced government infringing on them. They knew what it was like to have the State dictate the course of their life, their religion, their associations. When they wrote the constitution, they wanted to protect everyone from those breaches of power. They believed it was a natural god given right to be free, to have freedom. Today you see those freedoms being limited slowly, one peice at a time.

Just remember this rule, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

People act for their self benifit, and when they can to help their friends. Look at Bush and the oil industry or Cheney and Halliburton. Cheney will make millions from them when he leaves the white house. The temptation is too great. That is why we need rules in place to protect those in power from abusing the power we give them.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[gowen]

Since privacy is NOT mentioned, it cannot be infringed by the Federal Gov. - the people have a right to privacy.

Thats a nice idea, but the Supreme Court would laugh you out of the room if you pleaded:

"The Constitution makes no reference to heroin, and so the Federal Laws prohibiting its trafficking are unconstitutional."

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Stile 65]

The right to privacy may be implied in the 9th amendment, but it's a logical extension of the right of property which is protected by the 5th amendment.

Also remember that the Constitution does not grant rights, but sets up a government whose job it is to protect what are/were thought of as "natural rights" - things like life, liberty, property, and their natural extensions. Privacy is a natural right. Security is another aspect of the rights of life/liberty - if your person is not secure against another's aggression, then you don't actually have the right of life, but are granted a privilege of life by the charity of the person who does not initiate force against you.

Natural rights of course end where others' natural rights begin. Thus, when the nation was born, there was no wealth redistribution - someone's right of life did not mean that they had the right to be kept alive. So just because you couldn't provide for yourself doesn't mean it was okay to infringe upon someone else's right of property through taxation to artificially extend your right of life. Today's welfare state is moving farther and farther away from that idea.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Joel Carr]

Back then, you had people who experianced government infringing on them. They knew what it was like to have the State dictate the course of their life, their religion, their associations.

It seems more and more that in the present day we are heading back into the world you just described.

As you said:
Today you see those freedoms being limited slowly, one peice at a time.

Perhaps we are going to see things turn full circle before they start to get better...

---

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[DangerSteel]

>>The right to privacy may be implied in the 9th amendment, but it's a logical extension of the right of property which is protected by the 5th amendment. Unfortunatly if you've paid attention to the news the last few years you have seen how the government takes away much of your property ( or won't let you use it in a certain way- like to build a house, effectively taking it away) for thier own use under the guise "the public good or use" It's one of Neal Boortz's ( www.boortz.com ) hot buttons. >>People act for their self benifit, and when they can to help their friends. Look at Bush and the oil industry or Cheney and Halliburton. Cheney will make millions from them when he leaves the white house. The temptation is too great. That is why we need rules in place to protect those in power from abusing the power we give them. The poster of this info may not rememeber (or may not want to) that Dick Cheney sold all his interest in Haliburton before he was Vice-President to asuage any fears of improprieties in future government contracts. He gave up a lot of future material wealth to serve this country, hate blinds a lot of people to that, maybe people who cannot understand good motives.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[denisdekat]

You are talking about the will to live to the maximum, and the will to power. Everyone goes for it, and when they have it, they have a hard time letting go of it. What a sad state of nature we are in :(

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution specifically grants the government the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Actually, the Constitution is very specific - I paraphrase: "Any right not enumerated is considered to belong to the people". Since privacy is NOT mentioned, it cannot be infringed by the Federal Gov. - the people have a right to privacy.

The framers, and the drafters of the "Bill of Rights" did not want to fall into the trap of forgetting something, so they made sure they had a safety net in place. They weren't dummies.

What you're talking about here is the Tenth Amendment, the last part of the original Bill of Rights. Amendment X is all of 28 words. Here they are:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In the 1996 Presidential campaign, Bob Dole flew a couple of trial balloons about "dusting off the Tenth Amendment," which was Republican code for "get rid of social programs we don't like." I laughed and wondered if ol' Bob would be willing to have a real discussion of dusting off the Tenth Amendment and doing away with all the power the US Government has taken on without that power having been delegated to the government by the Constitution. Of course not!
The Tenth Amendment, like the Second, was designed to protect the people from the very government whose powers are specified by the Constitution. The Second Amendment was not about armies or self-defense against foreign invaders, as its modern-day opponents allege; it was designed to prevent the usurpation of power by the Federal Government that has in fact occurred over the 217+ years since the Constitution was written. I am sad to report that the meaning of the Second and Tenth Amendments is largely forgotten (favorite funny slogan for the ACLU: "Defending the rights guaranteed by the Amendments of the Bill of Rights-- all nine of them") and basically ended up amounting to nothing more than mere speedbumps, only slowing down (definitely NOT preventing) the theft of power from citizens of the USA by the government of the USA.

It's a little sad that I have to say this, but even though I've criticized both the Republicans and the ACLU (and thus, basically the entire political "spectrum" of the USA), this is not intended as any kind of troll. The meaning of the two Amendments in question is clear if you read the Constitution itself and other writings from the same time by the "framers" of the Constitution. The framers, having had to fight a war against a government they felt did not represent them, were very worried about their new government becoming like the one against which they had fought. Washington voluntarily stepping down after two terms as President due to concerns that he could become like a new "king" shows that this concern continued until at least 1797, more than 15 years after the end of the American Revolutionary War and more than a decade after the Constitution was written.

--Mark

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[platipusrc]

Most of the laws on the books, including any that prevent your possession of heroin, are indeed unquestionably unconstitutional. It's just that certain people, the ones that have the badges and blinking lights and stuff, don't care that everything they do with respect to enforcing unconstitutional laws is a felony because they are the ones that would have to do something about it.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[bobetov]

That is taking a very old-fashioned view of the threats to privacy in the world. In the old days, someone would have to read your papers or invade your house to know private things about you. In todays world with linked databases and omnipresent public "security" cameras, there is very little that cannot be known about you from purely public information.

About the only thing you are really free to do is act in your own home. But even there, if someone can find out that you bought Girls Gone Wild, hand lotion and some kleenex, all within the same week, the black box of your home becomes a very thin shell indeed. With enough sample points, the black box of your "privacy" becomes transparent.

Tracking where you go (EZPass, cell phone), what you buy (credit card, buyer's programs, RFIDs), websites you visit (cookies), who your friends are (Friendster), your driving record (DMV, insurance co.), etc, means that although you may *in theory* have privacy, everything anyone could want to know about you is *knowable*.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Tackhead]

> Sure, some use amendments to imply one, but it just is not there, and the same amendments can be used to imply such things as a supposed "right to security" which can erode a supposed "right to privacy".
>
> Time for an amendment.

Agreed!

AMENDMENT XXVIII:
Section 1. The fourth and ninth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Dalcius]

The underlying problem of our growth of government is that people relate "good idea" with "law".

Want to stop drug use? Want to help the poor? Want to prevent companies from becoming too powerful? Want to prevent domestic industries from bombing out?

I personally think all of these are good ideas. However, government is not the only avenue you may pursue these on and anyone stuck in this dilusion is adding to the problem this thread is talking about.

Cheers

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

HE-MAN was the most corrupt of all, just look at that outfit, yikes!.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

But it IS in there!

The fourth ammendment: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/

The logical extention of that is privacy of private information.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Dalcius]

This is what you get when people will vote for anyone who will agree to give them something.

Everyone has this idea that the government is there to make the country great. Wrong. The government is there to protect you so you can live your life to your own choosing.

The day has come where YOU are no longer expected to make your country great, you just tell your government to do it for you. Charity, morals, economic power regulation, all of these things have been passed to your lawmakers. Do you think you have more control over these powers in your lawmakers' hands than in your own?

Government is a tool to control power, but the individual action, the individual decision, the individual debate, the individual dollar, the individual volunteer hour... all of these things are tools more powerful than those proxied off to a self-interested, self-perpetuating government.

The problem with government is, it's all or nothing. We either outlaw X or allow X, we take money from group A and give to group B, there are few gray areas.

Government is a sledgehammer and should be used as such and only as such. It might be a good idea to consider making your country great on your own.

At the risk of sounding resoundingly cheesy, I'll end this with a quote:

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
-- H. L. Mencken

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Mr. Piddle]

The real problem here is that there is no Constitutional right to privacy.

I disagree. The constitution clearly states that citizens should be safe with regard to their personal effects and papers (something along those lines), and I would interpret this to go as far as covering data, even digital data, such as bank records. Also, on a person's property, if they construct walls to prevent peering eyes, then that person has total right to privacy within those walls, unless evidence is sufficient for a court-ordered warrant.

The presumption of innocence is a root of the USA, we simply cannot allow it to be eroded away by socialists and fear-mongers.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Mr. Piddle]

This follows from the founding fathers' belief that man's fundamental state in nature is one of Freedom, and that man thrives in that state. The only real role of government is to prevent the woes of anarchy, such as murder and extortion. They believed in the free market. They believed in innocence until proven guilty. Their beliefs and the framework they laid out allowed the USA to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation in all of Earth's history.

Historians can tell you how the USA is the result of centuries of oppression by the Church and monarchies. The foundations of the USA could be easily traced all the way back to the beginning of the Renaissance, when people finally began to start thinking for themselves.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[red floyd]

Actually, he's talking about the Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth (same link) says that the Federal Government has no powers except those explicitly listed.

To paraphrase:

9. Even though we didn't mention them, you've got those rights.
10. If we didn't say the feds can do something, they can't.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[red floyd]

AMENDMENT XXVIII:
Section 1. The fourth and ninth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.

The sad thing is that I can see Ashcroft creaming in his pants to get this one. Though, Ashcroft's version would read:

AMENDMENT XXVIII:
Section 1. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I grow opium poppies in my backyard, and sell the heroin to my next-door neighbor, where is the "Interstate Commerce" involved?

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Loki_1929]

" The real problem here is that there is no Constitutional right to privacy."

And thus, you, like so many before you, have fallen prey to the most diabolical usurption of power in the history of government - that the Constitution grants rights to the people. In fact, the Constitution specifically enumerates a small number of things with which the Federal government is tasked, and goes on to specifically state that anything not mentioned IS a right of the states, or of the people. The primary argument raised against support for the Bill of Rights was that an enumeration of specific rights could, at some point in time, be construed by a corrupt Federal government leadership to mean that the only rights citizens have are those granted to them under the Constitution.

The problem with this line of thinking is that once you begin to argue with the government over which rights you do and do not have, the argument inevitably shifts to which rights the government chooses to grant you. The instant this becomes the topic for debate, you've already lost. A government that grants rights to its citizens is a government that can revoke those rights as soon as they become inconvenient or run counter to the particular goals at hand. Thus, we have government agents who may legally break into a citizen's home, confiscate their property, bug their computers and telephones, and may do so with a secret warrant obtained under secret proceedings where the burden of 'proof' is reduced to an agent's vague and generic answers to questions by a panel of judges whose hands are virtually tied into granting every application.

Let there be no mistake - the FISA court is nothing more than a single degree of seperation between the FBI and the KGB. It is a rubber stamp court whose sole purpose is to lend a sliver of credibility to something which would otherwise provoke riots in the streets.

I don't need an amendment to tell me which rights I have - I need an amendment to punish those who violate my rights with our most severe penalties. I want to see an amendment that provides for life in prison for members of congress who vote up legislation that blatantly violates the God-given/creator-granted/natural-born rights of the citizens of this country. Seeing as some see fit to ignore the highest laws of our land, I think it's time we spelled out specific and severe criminal punishments for those who just can't seem to keep their hands off the rights of the people. While it might be inconvenient to imprison every member of congress who voted up the PATRIOT ACT, it would certainly set the tone for further debate. While we're at it, I think we need a nice, long-winded amendment discussing just which things the Federal government can and cannot stick its nose into. Once we've cleared out all the crap that's accumulated over the past 100 years or so, (things like the 'War on Drugs', Corporate welfare, most of current welfare other such programs), I think we'll find that paying down the national debt is rather simple. Once that's payed down, we can rescind the Federal income tax - an unconstitutional 'head tax' that was passed under the pretext that it was a temporary emergency measure. Your state taxes will go up substantially, but will be nowhere near what they are now, when combined with Federal taxes.

Wiping out 60 - 70% of the Federal government's current tasks, jobs, budget, and powers would bring this country to a century of unparalleled prosperity and freedom. The Federal tyranny began with Lincoln's unconstitutional war against the break-away southern states, and continues to grow in size and power even today. At this point, the titanic beast bleeds money, spits fire, and does little to no good for the American people. Let's give most of this money to the states and get people in state governments who are responsible enough to use it well.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Lord_Frederick]

The constitution is filled with implied rights and powers. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the supreme court ruled that even though the constitution did not explicitly say that the national government could create a bank, it was implied that they have that power.

One of the great strenghts and possibly weaknesses of our constituion is that it is constantly open to interpretation in order to adjust to changing times.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy is not mentioned in the constitution as during the times of James Madison and the framers, privacy referred to what one needed in the outhouse.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[BranMan]

Damn nice post! Thanks for filling in the blanks I was remembering off the cuff.

Though as I remember it (again, hazy on the details) is that Washington was offered a crown - the framers wanted to make him King - and he, to his everlasting credit, declined. They then came up with the office of President, and Washington accepted that instead.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[1029]

Wow, thanks for displaying that TOTAL ignorance of how the US Constitution works. See, there doesn't need to be an amendment saying "You have a right to privacy" because there is no text saying the government has the power to take away your privacy. And as any US citizen should know (but most don't due to our abysmal public indoctrin... erm education system) any powers not SPECIFICALLY given to the government are reserved to the states, and most importantly to the people.

Now if only we would get off our lazy asses and start telling the government where it can shove it when it goes too far, we might actually get some rights back. Rights that the government never had authority to take in the first place.

...rant mode off.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Score! I hereby announce that from now on I plan to exercise my right to free krispy kreme donuts and back rubs from midgets.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Good point, red floyd. I think both the 9th and the 10th come into this discussion. The 9th Amendment enters as you described-- the people have rights even if the Constitution, in specifying the powers of the government, does not explicitly mention them. The Tenth enters because the government wants to do some things the Constitution did not specify.

I have mod points, and I'd have modded you up if I hadn't already posted in this thread.

--Mark

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Mark_in_Brazil]

red floyd makes a really good point in a reply to my post. He points out that the 9th Amendment is what you were talking about. As I state in my reply to his reply, I think both the 9th and the 10th come into this discussion, but I definitely erred in leaving out the 9th. I also found interesting the argument I saw elsewhere in this thread that the right to privacy is a logical extension of the right to property that comes up at the end of the 5th Amendment.

The Bill of Rights is a pretty amazing document, and that's coming from a somewhat disgusted expat. I guess I could say it's a shame what's been done to it. That doesn't seem like too controversial a statement.

--Mark

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[jafac]

IMO - the 4th Amendment pretty clearly states it.

If not, there's always the 9th and 10th. . .

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[jafac]

They believed it was a natural god given right to be free, to have freedom.

it's true. (if you believe in such a thing).

In the Bible, in Genesis - the very first three words God says to us is "You are free. . . " (in the context of choosing to eat anything in the garden, except for a certain fruit. . . - the fact that Adam and Eve chose to eat that fruit means - they were TRULY free.)

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Zork the Almighty]

I think it is the will of government and the will of those in power to take away as many freedoms and rights as they can. I doubt you will ever have the conditions again which formed our country.

I'm sure England didn't really see it coming either! Well, I guess we know you're out :)

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[tswann01]

A recent episode of Law & Order made a none-too-flattering mention of FISA. Anyone else see it? Who's the big privacy advocate there?

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Loki_1929]

I saw it, but I believe they made one mistake. During the episode, they mentioned that of all the applications for search warrants and such to the FISA court, only four have been rejected. This, to my knowledge, is not the case. In fact, only one has been rejected, and it was overturned on appeal. By the way, this was the only time in history that the FISA appeals court had even met to discuss a case. There had never before been a need.

Rubber-stamp court indeed.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Syberghost]

9. Even though we didn't mention them, you've got those rights.
10. If we didn't say the feds can do something, they can't.

In light of that interpretation, please justify the federal law against private ownership of nuclear weapons.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[red floyd]

What do you mean "interpretation"?

Please give your interpretation of the meaning of the 9th and 10th.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Syberghost]

My interpretation of the 9th is that it doesn't repeal Article 1.

My interpretation of the 10th is the same.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[red floyd]

What part of Article I are you referring to?

Article I enumerates the powers of Congress. If it's not listed there, then according to Amendment X, Congress doesn't have that power.

Amendment I lists some explicit rights. Amendment IX states that those rights are not the only ones that the People inherently have.

How does Am9 or Am10 "repeal Article 1"?

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Syberghost]

How does Am9 or Am10 "repeal Article 1"?

It doesn't. That's what I said.

This should be interesting.

[neferusobek]

sufficiently addresses concerns about the handling of personally identifiable information.

Personally I think this postion was a sham to begin with and the people who created it knew that or very early on there was a lack of concern for what this position was to be and no one adhered to these rules. Now they will evaluate it? I for one want to see how this turns out. If kelly recvies anything less than a failing grade that will just prove to me (and I'm sure many other) that HomeLandSecurity and no regards for privacy.

Re:This should be interesting.

[John Seminal]

I agree. I think at the least there should be a congressional oversight committie, and they should have in place a private watchdog group to review what the office of homeland security does. I would have people who were trusted by the ACLU in that group, known privacy advocates. If they put someone in that office that is just a rubber stamp, then they might as well do away with the oversight because it might as well not be there. All they are doing is adding some official stamp to try and gain legitimacy, which is something they can only have if they have the public trust.

Re:Privacy

[war3rd]

Perhaps *you* do, but most of us probably just like to think we are not being spied on all the time. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to be 'on camera,' so to speak, all the time. And the less privacy we have as a society the more danger there is to those of us who can be victimized by an admittedly small group of crimminal offenders. I would like my children to be safe, but there has to be a balance.

Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[99bottles]

Does anyone see anything oxymoronic about the people that gave us the Patriot Act talking about privacy?

Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[flewp]

I always thought the Patriot Act itself was an oxymoron.

That and just plain moronic. The fact that Feingold was the only person to vote against it (or maybe 1 of 2 people) is one reason he may get my vote, though I don't agree with a lot of his other stuff.

Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[gertsenl]

No, because they've been getting a lot of flack for it. With that one part being ruled unconstitutional (according to one judge) and the various other challanges from disparate municipalities, this is a prime (if rare) example of government actually trying to correct their fascism, even if it is in their own fanciful bereaucratic fashion -- I, for one, welcome it, commend them, and don't see the need to poopoo it.

Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[G. W. Bush Junior]

Does anyone see anything oxymoronic about the people that gave us the Patriot Act talking about privacy?

Yes, I'm sure you're the only one.
And I think it's double plus good that they have a privacy officer!

Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[Mononoke]

Does anyone see anything oxymoronic about the people that gave us the Patriot Act talking about privacy?

At least we didn't have to register to read their comments.

Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[cluckshot]

Yes I can! Even the Act is an oxymoron. But then so is the "Department of Homeland Security" and the "Central Intelligence Agency." Of course nobody noticed when the US Defense Department was called on to actually defend the USA on 9/11/2001 and after we found out it was not the "Defense of the USA" they were talking about. Why it wasn't their job to do that!

To be a bit more serious for a moment the /. community needs to demand the US Congress forbid the transmission, storage or processing of a long list of Personal Identity Data and Records to Jurisdictions which do not honor All of the warrants of our State Courts. This of course closes the "Outsourcing problem once and for all because no other country honors our State Warrants completely. In fact most Nations don't honor any of them. This is quite essential because the prosecution of "Identity Theft" has no value if the custody of the data is beyond the reach of our courts routinely.

Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[Tackhead]

> > Does anyone see anything oxymoronic about the people that gave us the Patriot Act talking about privacy?
>
> At least we didn't have to register to read their comments.

You take back what you said about Raph Koster and his project to modernize the opinion-gathering function of the Federal Register, or your kids are spending the rest of their lives in Gitmo, starting tomorrow, bud! We give you citizens access to the workings of government, but we can ban you just as quick!

Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[Mr. Piddle]

It's called by many names, such as spin, double-speak, etc. Relying on the government to protect citizens' privacy is naive, foolish, and downright stupid. The conflicts of interest are too great, and the temptations too strong.

Re:Patriot Act !~ /privacy/

[UFNinja]

Congress talking about privacy is like NAMBLA talking about protecting children.

HIPPA

[Anonymous Coward]

Government is on the right track with laws like HIPPA, as we see the government already acting against Doctors who publicly released Dr. Atkins medical records. However, privacy laws need to go further ...

The US needs UK like data privacy laws where no company or organization can ship private information outside the homeland's jurisdiction. This will not only help keep jobs in the country but protect the US from a digital "Pearl Harbor"

Re:HIPPA

[neferusobek]

"Government is on the right track with laws like HIPPA...."

The right track? Maybe. They are defintely on the same track though. Using it when its a high profile person and everyone else gets loss in the fray. When the govt' standardizes the HIPPA procedures then maybe I can agree with you. Passing a law and then having people execute/follow the *same* law in differnt ways will lead to loopholes and do more harm than good.

Re:HIPPA

[Blakey Rat]

HIPPA is a good idea with terrible, terrible execution. We just had a discussion at the hospital I work at with a company installing some VPN software about the level of encryption HIPPA requires... of the four people there who work with medical computer systems, not one actually knew what level of encryption was required, and guesses ranged from 24 bits to 128 bits.

From what I've heard, the main enforcement of HIPPA right now is 'try to make it secure'. That is, at least lock the door to the file cabinets and turn the monitors so the people in the waiting room can't see what's on the screen, and turn the screen saver to 1 minute instead of 10.

A small explanation

[deltagreen]

For those that weren't immediately able to understand what the story is about (that includes me), here is the start of the Wired article:

For the third year in a row, a bipartisan congressional coalition is pushing a bill that would require all government agencies to study the privacy impact of new rules before they put them into effect.

The Defense of Privacy Act (PDF), which was approved by a House subcommittee on Tuesday, would complement the E-Government Act of 2001, which requires agencies to submit privacy impact assessments whenever they buy new technology

Re:A small explanation

[El Torico]

And here is a very important quote from that same article,

"The bill doesn't tell agencies they can't issue regulations that violate people's privacy rights," Nojeim said. "It simply tells them they must consider alternative, privacy-sensitive regulations. They don't have to adopt those, however."

Which translates as, "We may be just window-dressing here."

There is an inherent conflict between privacy and security, and it is good to see that this is at least being revisited. Election years are good times to review policies, so maybe there is a serious intent to protect everyone's privacy in the US, but I have doubts.

I've read some Chomsky

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read some Chomsky. He has absolutely no credibility on socio-political affairs. He is a great linguist, however.

His political writings are deliciously fact-free. His ideology warps everything very badly. He is viewing things through an invalid and disproven simplistic theory (Marxism) which has little relationship with actual events. It is like reading stuff where everything is explained by Xemu or orgone energy.

He's also very gullible: if a horrific fascist dictator claims to be a Marxist, Chomsky is instantly in the dictator's camp.

Re:I've read some Chomsky

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you missed the part about ad-hominems, huh?

Re:I've read some Chomsky

[a whoabot]

What do you mean "invalid and disproven simplistic theory (Marxism)". If you're referring to just Marx' (and Engels, I would assume), how can you say they're invalid? Marx's impact in enormous: it still greatly influences today. And Marxists since Marx himself have contributed indeniably to theory over the years.

You cannot easily write of a portion of theory as being "invalid" and "disproven", and to say so for Marxism is truly ridiculous.

Privacy vs protection

[hthiefshorty]

I am in the military, and completely understand the need to protect the United States and its citizens from terrorist. That being said, I am afraid some of the measures put into place by the Patriot Act and other knee-jerk legislation have the two problems: 1) They would not have been effective if they were in place on September 10, and 2) They either infringe on basic rights, or they expose people to addition dangers implicit with having person information stored in a database. The problem starts with people writing the legislation not having a clear understanding of the technology they want to employ. The problem gets worse when the next generation expands the programs to use data for purposes the original drafters of the legislation never intended. For a government built on checks and balances, this is unacceptable. Each agency reviewing the use of personal information only works as well as the people doing the review. We need hard standards that specify what the government can collect, and some kind of legislation that limits access to the information in the future. Blanket cries of national defense are starting to sound a little hollow.

Re:Privacy vs protection

[Articuno]

Privacy: You can't read the gov's emails
Protection: Gov. can (will ? :) read your emails

Re:Privacy vs protection

[Joel Carr]

Sorry, I couldn't resist!!

That been said, I totally agree with everything you have written. It's getting all a bit out of hand I think.

Oh, and by the way, I'm in the military too... ;)

---

Re:Privacy vs protection

[workindev]

1) They would not have been effective if they were in place on September 10

While I understand the criticisms people have against the Patriot Act, I cannot understand how anybody can make this assertion. It is ridiculous for anybody to claim that they know what we would and would not know if this legislation was in place prior to 9/11.

There were 19 hijackers on 9/11, and as many as eight of them carried passports that "showed evidence of fraudulent manipulation," while as many as five of the passports had "suspicious indicators." None of the hijackers filled out Visa applications correclty, and three of them had clearly lied on the application. [source] If the proceedures and regulations in the Patriot Act were in place prior to 9/11, I find it unlikely that all 19 of these hijackers would have made it through given these circumstances.

You should also remember that if any one of these 19 people did not make it in to the US, lives would have likely been saved. 3 out of the 4 hijacked planes had 5 hijackers on board, the 4th only had 4 (thus leading to the theories of the "20th hijacker"). The flight with only 4 hijackers was the only plane that didn't hit a civilian target, but was forced down by the passengers aboard.

Re:Privacy vs protection

[Mr. Piddle]

Very well said. Thank you.

Re:Privacy vs protection

[red floyd]

And one of the hijackers got notification that his visa was approved 6 months after 9/11. Your argument is specious.

Re:Privacy vs protection

[Anonymous Coward]

The checks and balances include the duty of military personnel to turn down orders that are illegal. You say the kneejerk legislation violates basic rights. If you believe the legislation also violates constitutional rights, your part in the system of checks and balances legally requires you to refuse to follow any orders based on the unconstitutional legislation. Like your commander in chief said before the invasion of Iraq, "Just following orders" is not an acceptable defense. All military personnel have a part to play in protecting the basic rights and freedoms of all Americans by following your training to carefully think about the legality of every order before carrying out the order.

you beat me to it...

[tuxette]

I was about ready to write "Oxymoron of the day: Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security."

A nice little placebo position really. Let's make people think that privacy rights are being respected. It's like most privacy policies on websites; not worth the bandwidth they waste. Very little value when you don't have strong privacy laws as backup. And what's the point of having a privacy officer for the DHS when "anti-terrorism" laws don't allow for such things as being able to see what kind of information is registered on yourself in the first place?

Re:you beat me to it...

[Migraineman]

"Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security" is such a discontinuous mouthful. Perhaps they're planning to rename the position to "Minister of Truth."

Our politicians seem more determined to provide the "appearance of security/privacy/rights" rather than the actual goods. I s'pose it's less expensive for the taxpayer, and therefore a good thing!

Re:you beat me to it...

[Tackhead]

> I was about ready to write "Oxymoron of the day: Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security."
>
> A nice little placebo position really. Let's make people think that privacy rights are being respected. It's like most privacy policies on websites; not worth the bandwidth they waste.

In short, a former Doubleclick executive is perfect for the job!

That is just search and seizure

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no right at all for someone to invade another persons house, papers, posessions, or the like without a court approving it.

That is just search and seizure. Privacy beyond that is not mentioned at all.

Re:That is just search and seizure

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the whole point. Nobody can seize your papers or even go through them unless someone else comes forward and tells a court "That person is about to break the law by....". Even then, a court can say "no" we do not trust the person making the charge. That is why the police can not decide for themselves.

Re:I call bullshit

[war3rd]

No wonder you hide behind the 'anonymous coward' username. Since you are so against privacy, why not post under your real username instead of an anonymous one? It's too bad that angry people like you make the rest of us suffer your ignorance....

Like similar positions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this "Minister of Privacy" position will be more like the EPA head who has gutted long-standing environmental laws. Now personally I've always thought that the Republican candidates had more respect for individual privacy laws and that Democrats were more likely to attempt to legislate morality (and you know as well as I that this is impossible). Plus, it seems there have always been fewer wackos running on the Republican tickets than on the Democratics ones.
Not in this administration.
Part of freedom is the ability to do what one pleases as long as it does not hurt or affect others. But now I'm seeing laws that allow the government (under the pretense of law enforcement) to surveil whoever they want without a judge giving the OK. This administration has soiled the sacrifices of those brave soldiers on earlier battlefields; it has twisted the tragic deaths of those on 9/11; it has waged war by deceiving the American public.

These are our new overlords.

Re:Like similar positions?

[Mr. Piddle]

Now personally I've always thought that the Republican candidates had more respect for individual privacy laws and that Democrats were more likely to attempt to legislate morality (and you know as well as I that this is impossible).

Republicans, being more business-minded, can't ignore the profitability of raw data. Democrats, being more social-minded, can't ignore the political value of raw data.

Either way, privacy is at stake.

That is way too vague

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Constitution is very specific

That is not very specific at all. This is why I mentioned the supposed "right to security" which can cancel out the supposed "right to privacy". I am using "supposed" since NEITHER is in the Constitution.

Learn to live with it

[andih8u]

You have no privacy anyway. Anytime you pay for something with a credit card, make a local phone call, a long distance phone call, buy a plane ticket, sign online, apply for a loan, pay a utility bill late, turn on your cell phone, rent a video, use your frequent shopper card, get a ticket, goto the doctor, get health insurance, or buy anything online you're just adding yourself to a big database somewhere.

Re:Learn to live with it

[John Seminal]

Not true. Government should not have access to those records without a court order. So those records are private. If a company gives out your credit card data to someone, and you did not allow for that or sign for that, they have violated privacy laws. The only reason they give out that data is because you allow them to, read any credit card application. The problem is nobody reads those dang things and the credit card companies can get away with anything. If my bank can get me to pay 2 dollars to use an ATM, and everyone fought against them and lost, then imagine what your bank can do when you do not even know it. You have to read all those legal documents and respond.

The reason you feel like there is no privacy is because you never challenge these institutions. Did you ever write a letter to your bank telling them you do not allow any release of private information, that you do not want them selling your data to third companies? This might be why some people open bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. They are not terrorists, they just do not want information being shared with third parties unless they explicitly agree. Why don't banks here say they will not sell your personal information?

Just because the paper exists, does not mean that government has the right to seize it. Even if they do seize it illegally, there are the courts to protect you.

Re:Learn to live with it

[Mikkeles]

"The only reason they give out that data is because you allow them to, read any credit card application. The problem is nobody reads those dang things and the credit card companies can get away with anything."

Perhaps those clauses should be treated in the same manner as a clause that stated:
"By using this credit card you implicitly consent to becoming our slave should we ever want you to."

That is: completely unenforceable.

Re:Learn to live with it

[ncr53c8xx]

You have no privacy anyway. Anytime you pay for something with a credit card, make a local phone call, a long distance phone call, buy a plane ticket, sign online, apply for a loan, pay a utility bill late, turn on your cell phone, rent a video, use your frequent shopper card, get a ticket, goto the doctor, get health insurance, or buy anything online you're just adding yourself to a big database somewhere.

Scott McNealy would really like it everyone gave up their privacy. He wants people to get over it. However, privacy, like security is a process. You don't have to subject yourself to all this privacy invasion in the future if the laws/business methods are changed. In particular, how do the database maintainers verify the data they have? Unless privacy violations are backed by specific laws, the value of the databases would be small. To paraphrase a slashdot fortune, you will have zero privacy only when you accept zero privacy.

Re:Learn to live with it

[pohzer]

This is something said far too casually, and far too often these days. It is also not true.

If the issue is difficult and stressful, then ignore it and enjoy your life. But please don't make public statements of acceptance of injustice, just to make you feel better.

You signed your note anonymous. Even if I try real hard, I can't find out who you are or where you live. Even if I consider your position anathema to my grand economic and political goals, and decide I need to send goons over to eliminate you as a potential threat to my objectives, I can't. You have privacy.

It is so easy to say "you have no privacy" and "get over it" but when you imagine all that lack of privacy (using your credit card, phone, Internet, /.) can you really truthfully say you have no privacy?

You have tons of privacy. But, you are losing it at a very fast rate, with considerable acceleration. It is not time to quit and accept dominance. It is time to discuss, educate, and proclaim not the lack of privacy or its insignificance, but the importance of privacy and its preservation.

The very same argument can be applied to the environment. Some say "the world is already polluted - get over it" and yet they still are able to breathe without gasping or choking. They still walk outside with bare feet without getting cuts from glass and rusty metal (most times), they still shower with public water without getting skin lesions. Do we all have to wait until their really is no privacy or clean air/water?

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Re:Learn to live with it

[Mr. Piddle]

You have no privacy anyway.

People expressing such complacency are very disappointing. Actually, what's at stake here is even having the choice of privacy. What do you think now? At least, now, I can choose to do business with companies with good policies towards my information. I can still feel somewhat confident that the government doesn't have its tendrils into every aspect of my life. We do still have privacy, because of compartmentalization. Don't forget that.

Big Brother

[frasherdabasher]

What scares me the most is people are blind to see what letting the government collect information on people with out any control will bring to us. I think the government impact in our lives was to strong before the Patriot Act was ever dreamed up. The small rights they take away just will lead to the total control they might have over us in the end. More people need to start watching what our Governmental Officials are doing with our tax money. I think this new bill should have been put in place back in the early stages of telephone, satellites, and other communicational devices that the government can in some way use to listen in on our private lives.

while this is true...

[tuxette]

Yes. Data on us are recorded every time we use a credit card or use the phone or buy a plane ticket or whatever else. However, the difference between the US and the EU is what can be done with this data.

Apparently in the US, "anything goes." Companies promise to keep data private, only to sell or transfer it to third parties, as in the case of several airlines. Sensitive personal data is outsourced to countries like India and Pakistan for processing. What happens? The natives can threaten to release this data if they're not paid a certain amount of money.

In Europe, EU and individual national laws dictate that this data can among other things only be used for a specific purpose determined before data collection, not be used for other purposes, and not be released to third parties without the consent of the data subject. Furthermore, personal data cannot be transferred to countries that do not have privacy laws equivalent to or stronger than the Directive.

The EU Directive is the rule; countries in the EU and EEA are required to have national privacy laws based on the Directive.

Re:while this is true...

[demachina]

"Companies promise to keep data private, only to sell or transfer it to third parties, as in the case of several airlines."

Actually on the evening news last night it appears you are giving the airlines a bad rap, though you are citing legitimate past transgressions. The TSA is apparently desperate to start testing its new screening program, which requires every detail about every passenger be exposed to TSA including credit history and any criminal record, including misdemeanors. If there are ANY issues in your background including simple errors in your credit history, you will be pulled aside every time you fly and be given "special treatment". I imagine it will be iffy if you will be able to count on getting on an airplane when this is in place, unless your electronic trail is squeaky clean. This is coming from the TSA which, in the rush to hire new screeners, hired nearly something approaching a hundred felons and still hasn't done background checks on many of the people who control what goes in to airports.

Apparently the TSA is having problems testing the program because airlines are refusing to participate or turn over the necessary data citing privacy concerns. Unfortunately is appears the government has a simple solution. The Department of Homeland security is planning to simply order the airlines to participate and they will have to unless someone stops Ridge and company.

If there is a person responsible for protecting privacy in the Department of Homeland Security I think they rate an F unless they stop this intrusive screening program which is more likely to hassle ordinary people and punish advesaries of the Bush administration than it is to catch any terrorists.

If you want to see what your government is now capable of look up a recent anti war conference at Drake University. The Bush administration started a massive, secretive investigation in an effort to identify everyone who attended and everything was said. The governement also tried to gag everyone at Drake so that this blatant assault on free spreech would remain secret, though thanks to the Internet is isn't:

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo02102004.html
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/2004021 1092740.asp

Re:while this is true...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the USA companies do as they must to show a PROFIT.

FUCK the socialists.

Re:I call bullshit

[Tim C]

why not post under your real username instead of an anonymous one

Never mind that, how about posting address & phone number details too? No? Got something to hide then?

Chipping at Privacy

[leoaugust]

I think chipping at privacy is like hitting a block of stone with a hammer.

Nothing seems to happen at first, and then you see a few flakes fall - nothing much. It seems nothing is happening to the huge block of stone. And then suddenly with just one more blow the whole block of stone splits apart.

Unfortunately, what is happening to the stone as each hammer blow pounds on it is not visible - and our eyes cannot see what our minds cannot see. Trusting our eyes we don't realize what is happening to the our privacy, and less so as to what effect it shall have on us ...

.

Re:Chipping at Privacy

[RimfireShooter]

I totally agree. The problem is that the average American is ignorant and doesn't care or cant see past the end of his nose to the long term implications. Most think it has no affect on them.

You see it on TV during one the spot interviews all the time. The standard answers are

1) If it helps fight terrorism it's a good idea.
2) I don't have anything to hide, if it helps fight terrorism it's a good idea.
3) Yes, I think Arabs should be more scrutinized at the airport, so if it helps fight terrorism it's a good idea.

It all those "common sense" chips that are the problem. I rejoice every time another part of the Patriot Act is ruled unconstitutional.

I find it humorous that one of the questions in the US Guide to Naturalization:

75) Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

Answer) All people living in the United States

The answer should be

US citizens only, and then only if a US Supreme Court rules that the DOJ must give US citizens due process.

We need more or less privacy?

[dark-br]

To achieve valuable personal integration, people typically need a significant measure of security from invasions of their private space as well as their private records and information. In fact, they need more than immunity from invasion: they need time for reflection, time when they are not in co-operation with others or distracted by other commitments. In this sense, the right to privacy really is concerned with valuable (i.e. morally upright) individual self-development.

Whenever I visit a tourist attraction that has a guest register, I always sign it. After all, you never know when you'll need an alibi.

I've been doing this since I was a kid, but these days you don't have to take any positive action to leave a trail behind. Almost everything we do is recorded. Closed-circuit cameras watch us in most public places. Our credit-card purchases, japanese schoolgirl tentacle porn, telephone calls and Web surfing are all tracked these days.

Editorialists have decried these losses of privacy, as if it were the most sacred of human rights. But just what is the value of privacy? Do we really need it? And, indeed, can we afford it? After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.

Re:We need more or less privacy?

[radja]

to those who say they need no privacy: just stick your address, phonenumber, monthly wage and name on the toiletdoor of some seedy bar...

that's why we need privacy.

Re:We need more or less privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a retarded argument. Given an inclination I could find out your phone number, address, and salary in the course of a half an hour and scrawl it on the bathroom door of a seedy bar.

Figure out a better argument for privacy instead of a knee-jerk half-witted response.

Re:We need more or less privacy?

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Nice quoting.
Nicked from a previous discussion
Even then, half of that had been nicked from someone's article. Privacy: Who Needs It?

Betcha didn't think you'd get caught?

Re:We need more or less privacy?

[filmsmith]

If it's so retarded, lift the anonymity, coward.

fs

Re:We need more or less privacy?

[Scroatzilla]

Yes we need it. Yes we can afford it, because it is free. The ultimate privacy is having thoughts. Since nobody can read your mind, the only clues that people have about your mental state is your lifestyle. Under a system with zero privacy, if the lifestyle you lead is not "normal," for which there is no definition, you will be construed as insane. If you say things that aren't "normal" you will be considered a sociopath. If you go to undesirable places during off hours, you will be considered unfit for employment.

Hey, didn't many of us as "nerds" get labeled and persecuted because we were different? Because we cared about stuff outside the mainstream? With no privacy/100% societal transparency, this definition of "normal behavior" could be conveniently modified at any time to harass/persecute/prosecute any person for any reason.

Aaaaah, you have anarchist-leaning writings on Slashdot. Freedom of Speech baby. So, you won't be arrested, but person-in-power X shares this info with person Y and says, "Shit man, this guy's a loon, don't hire him." Sounds paranoid, but it is only the logical extreme of this theory that you can do without privacy.

If someone could just give a clinical definition of NORMAL, I would at least feel a little better about losing my privacy. Maybe we could color code our closeness to normality. Like, I'm yellow so I'm kind of wacky, but i'm still not quite as bad as RED; be on high alert around him. Hmmm.

Baloney Re: no Constitutional right to privacy

[voss]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

What part of "secure in their persons , houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" does this "person" not understand.

This whole "no right to privacy", is just some neo-con bullcrap that is not supported by either case law or common law. It belongs in the same category as military commissions and martial law in that they have the appearance of law but are not really legal. They are typically called "violations of civil rights under 'color of law' "

The Fine Line in the Sand

[al!ethel]

It seems to me like we are walking a fine line between our security and our privacy. Some people are screaming to be "safe," while the other half of the population is screaming to keep individual "privacy." The positions in the Department of Homeland Security seem like a good place to set up someone to be shot down. Without a clear cut goal (none of this "make things better" stuff) all of the work that is done is totaly subjective. The department could be doing a great job, but there is no real way to tell. At the same time, if someone is doing a poor job, then we have no way to crucify the fool. With the extreem visibility of this position, it is also absurbly easy for the media to drag down anyone who does not fit what they want. Due to the subjective nature of the job, all the media has to do is make people feel unsafe and then the entire population will be howling for blood.

The thing that we need is well defined goals and some way of measuring preformance. Then I will start to worry about if I am giving up too much of my privacy in the cause of feeling "safe".

Re:The Fine Line in the Sand

[Mikkeles]

'It seems to me like we are walking a fine line between our security and our privacy. Some people are screaming to be "safe," while the other half of the population is screaming to keep individual "privacy."'

The thing is, the less privacy you have, the less security you have; the less privacy others have, the more security you have.

They got it, finally

[Maljin Jolt]

Yes, they noted a high politicians are most vulnerable to the personal data mining. Who cares about affairs of an average citizen John Smith? But Everybody would care about an average congressman.

Worth watching? Err...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: This should be worth watching.

How about "worth getting off your duff and getting involved in?"

Democratic government (insert pfft! here) is not a spectator sport.

Marxism is invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

Marx's impact in enormous: it still greatly influences today

Marxism has little to do with how humans behave. Yes, it does have great influence today. Saddam Hussein's Baath Socialist party was inspired by Marxism. North Korea is also a Marxist government.

Re:Marxism is invalid

[a whoabot]

Like, is this just a really light troll? Like somehow those are "bad" guys, and being the only ones you mentioned, therefore Marxism is bad too!!?

Since I'm not sure, I'll continue. YHBT me if you have to.

Okay, how can you say North Korea, is a "Marxist government", what is that supposed to mean? Like, this is an honest question, please elaborate. My understanding is that it is extremely Stalinist in character. The gap from Stalinist to Marxist is not negligible; at least or more as qualitatively as all of the world's current socialist governments. That would explain why essentially all "Marxists" were removed from the government of Stalin. A better example of today's world would certainly be Cuba.

I wouldn't say the Baath party was "inspired" - influenced no doubt. But essentially all governments nowadays are influenced by Marxism: some more than others. France's current government would be more "inspired" by Marxism than the the Baath party. Much of Europe's governments are greatly influenced by Marxism, and, of course, continental theory is still shaking from Marx's contributions.

Re:Marxism is invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

A better example of today's world would certainly be Cuba

Better example of what? It is little better than North Korea. It is run on the Stalinist model, and the dictator has killed tens of thousands for political non-conformance, or for crimes such as "Trying to escape".

Re:Marxism is invalid

[a whoabot]

Better example of Marxism applied. I was not referring to human rights issues. I agree. Human rights abuses are a MAJOR problem of both North Korea and Cuba. I am NOT saying that current stalinist states are "good": do not ever think that. I am saying that Marxism is influential.

Re:Marxism is invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

"Human rights abuses are a MAJOR problem of both North Korea and Cuba"

Unfortunately, they've been a hallmark of every marxist/stalist state.

Think of it...
N Korea
Soviet Union
China
Much of Eastern Europe
Cuba
Much of the short-lived Central American experiments.

Look, we all want to believe that people should work for the greater good. But they don't. People work hardest for themseves. Like war, its inherent in the human condition. You wish it wasn't. But it is. Get over it and design the government and social fabric accordingly.

Good intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, some of the soldiers in Iraq might be there with the best intentions, but basically they are there to do the bidding of the current US administration, which has bad intentions

The administration has very good intentions. The intentions are a free, peaceful and democratic Iraq (free of Saddam's terrorism).

Re:Good intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

> The administration has very good intentions. The intentions are a free, peaceful
> and democratic Iraq (free of Saddam's terrorism).

You believe that? Seriously? What were the US admistrations intentions when Rumsfeld was out in Iraq, shaking hands with Saddam around the time of his attack on Kurdish civilians?

Summary of discussion

[Phantasmo]

Privacy of the people = security risk
Privacy of politicians = security measure

Re:Summary of discussion

[ncr53c8xx]

Privacy of the people = security risk

Privacy of the people should be considered a security measure rather than a risk. The number of officials who have access to Government surveillance data is ever increasing. For instance, in the UK, one measure to ease the load on a particular machine was to give virtually all employees access to the police database. Imagine how easy it would be for a terrorist organization to plan a crime in this situation. Anyone remember the movie where the robbers visited the bank managers the night before?

Your basic problem.

[transops.net]

Here's the core issue: no one is safe against a sufficiently determined adversary, regardless of preventive measures which may have been put into place "ahead of time."

In fact, from a psychological perspective, putting too many ineffective barriers to harm in place may actually have the effect of lulling the populace (read: target) into a false sense of security. Case in point: grandmothers getting anal cavity searches during "routine" airport screenings (sorry for the nasty mental image, it's for purposes of illustration).

There is simply no way to reliably defend a large land mass against random insurgent attacks from loosely organized parties, especially when said attacking parties are comfortable with the notion of dying for their cause. I don't advocate our leaving Iraq anytime soon, as that would be utterly disastrous in the long term, but you only have to look at CNN each morning to note the steady stream of attacks on U.S. forces. True, the attacks don't have any significant impact on the forces deployed at large, but they will continue as long as people are willing to lay down their lives in the name of rebellion (or freedom, depending on which side of the fence you're standing on).

Personally, I think any measure of success in all of this goes back to people worrying about preserving their own immediate liberty first while still standing ready to defend their country as a whole against attack. This is not to be confused with attempting to play Dad to the entire nation while leaving one's own door unlocked, a practice many people seem somewhat adept at these days.

Of course, I'm probably going to be branded an armchair-this-or-that for my rambling, but so it goes.

Seeking partnerships with web design firms.

Butchered sentence; correction:

[a whoabot]

"...at least or more as qualitatively as all of the world's current socialist governments."

should be something like:

"...at least or more as qualitatively as large as the gap from all of the world's current socialist governments."

The gap is negligible

[Anonymous Coward]

"The gap from Stalinist to Marxist is not negligible; at least or more as qualitatively as all of the world's current socialist governments."

It is quite negligible, as current socialist governments run on the Stalinist model. Stalinism is what happened when Marxism was applied to the real world.

(I am not counting those Western European countries as "socialist": most of the economy in those countries is still in the hands of the people, not the State.)

Re:The gap is negligible

[a whoabot]

I won't argue that Stalinism didn't "happened" after trying to apply Marxism in a case. But, that does not mean Stalinism is Marxism, you seem to be pushing that. My point is only, Marxism is not "disproven" as claimed. That makes no sense. Marxism is still influential today and not just in those two examples made earlier, not at all. To deny that is preposterous. Those examples made earlier were clearly a [barely] implicit attempt to marginalise Marxism.

As for your second point. Ok, so you don't call them socialist. That's fine, I care not about the signs, you can call signify them however you want, but my point that Marxism has influenced them greatly is still true.

accountability

[Here I Stand]

was is needed is accountability wrt government use of information about people. even if these bills or this privacy officer start down the road to accountability, true accountability needs either openness or trust. openness in national security issues? i don't think so. that leaves trust, and that doesnt exist right now

MAKE THIS AN ELECTION ISSUE

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said

Heroin laws not unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the laws on the books, including any that prevent your possession of heroin, are indeed unquestionably unconstitutional

Such laws, as the heroin laws, concern matters not covered in the Constitution. As such, they are not unconstitutional.

Re:Heroin laws not unconstitutional

[platipusrc]

The point is that the constitution specifically says that anything not listed in the constitution is reserved as a right for the people of the US.

Re:Heroin laws not unconstitutional

[Zork the Almighty]

Which means that the people can decide whether they want it or not, by passing an appropriate law.

Re:Privacy

[fenix down]

something to hide that'd make *others* cry in disgust and/or laughter.

Yeah, that sums up my life pretty well, too.

If a tree falls in the forest. . .

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

if no one percieves that they are affected by the lack of privacy they generally won't care.

If the tree falls on a squirell, does the squireel make a sound?

Cuba is a good example of Marxism applied?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better example of Marxism applied

This is Cuba you are referring to? The government is quite stalinist. I thought you were saying that Stalinism was not good Marxism.

Heres and Idea...Vote!!!!!!

[pablo_max]

Stop the bitching and GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!! GO VOTE! write your congress man. You actually can make a difference. Remember, if you didnt vote then you helped put those assholes in office.

At least its not like voting for CEO at motorola though. I voted against Galvin every year anyway, but it turns out if you dont vote, its an automatic vote for him. Its also set up some weird way that you have to vote all the board off or no one. I know... off topic.

Stop being such a pussy

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow a pair and post with your SS#.

453-84-2379

Re:Stop being such a pussy

[lord_nightrose]

OK, fine. 867-00-5309.

power corrupts

[dpilot]

I prefer the version, with many attributions, that:

Power attracts the corruptible.

I wish there were an effective way to draft our government. I worry about the competence issue, and I wonder if it would reduce corruption. Just how honest is the average citizen? If the average citizen were honest, would the drop in corruption balance the presumed drop in competence as a result of drafting government?

Re:power corrupts

[yourmom16]

The only ways to get rid of corruption are to give absolute power, so noone has anything to offer, and to limit the power to the point that they have nothing to offer to those who can bribe them. The problems with the former are obvious; the problems with the latter are that the limits are hard to enforce, and erode over time, as people forget why those limitations were there in the first place.

Mods: this post copied in its entirety...

[sean.peters]

Here's the link...

Sean

Bill does NOT require report

[nuklearfusion]

From the bill:
(c) PROCEDURE FOR WAIVER OR DELAY OF COMPLETION- An agency head may waive or delay the completion of some or all of the requirements of subsections (a) and (b)

I'm no lawyer, but it looks like subsections (a) and (b) are the ones that allow the public to change incorrect information, give feedback, and even requires the government to publish the privacy assessment.
If my reading is correct and i think it is,) then the bill would do nothing as far as preventing things like the PATRIOT act, because those making such laws would undoubtedly want to keep this privacy report from reaching the public. Despite this, it would appear that the bill does protect us from accidentally invasive bills.

...not in the USA, but it's common elsewhere.

[C10H14N2]

I'm all for adding an ammendment as it would bring the US Constitution on a par with the rest of civilization.

Currently, we're relying on piecemeal precedent of prior interpretation and specific instances (see: HIPAA), which is an unreliable and horrendously expensive way to establish something that should be straight forward.

However, we should watch out for the caveats other countries have written. In the case of Iceland, Article 71 clearly establishes the right to privacy--and then gives an escape that the current U.S. administration would use as a blank check that would bring us right back to square one.

"Everyone shall enjoy freedom from interference with privacy, home, and family life.

Bodily or personal search or a search of a person's premises or possessions may only be conducted in accordance with a judicial decision or a statutory law provision. This shall also apply to the examination of documents and mail, communications by telephone and other means, and to any other comparable interference with a person's right to privacy.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph above, freedom from interference with privacy, home and family life may be otherwise limited by statutory provisions if this is urgently necessary for the protection of the rights of others."

South Africa is much more straight-forward about this, for reasons that should be obvious, stating in Chapter 2, Section 14,

"14. Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have

1. their person or home searched;
2. their property searched;
3. their possessions seized; or
4. the privacy of their communications infringed."

That's it. No ifs ands or buts. As it should be. If those rights are going to be violated by the state, there better be one hell of a good reason, not just a fishing expedition.

Not yet...

[gillbates]

Technically, there is no right to privacy until the Supreme Court adds it to the Constitution.

Right now, they're still cleaning up after the addition of the "separation of church and state" clause - Give 'em a break, man. Lawmaking is hard on a judge...

And when the Supreme Court passes a law, don't bother looking for it in either the Constitution or the Federal Statutes.

Sussing the Average Congressman

[handy_vandal]

But Everybody would care about an average congressman.

Everybody, in principle ... FBI-Mafia-Spooks-Etc., in particular.

-kgj

OT rant about "welfare states."

[hellfire]

I was right there up with you until you began to go on about this "welfare state."

In today's economy, there is a huge disparity between those with the most money and those with the least, especially in this country. The gaps between the haves and have nots create feelings of discontent, especially amongst those who can barely survive. This became particularly evident during the industrial revolution and really hasn't changed much since.

While morally laws such as these are touted to "level the playing field," they were originally conceived as measures of security, which falls right in line with the founding father's ideals. The idea being that those at the bottom of the pile have a "safety net" so they do not have to resort to crime in order to survive. The founding father's said "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." While I don't think its right to try to make everyone exactly equal and give everyone $50,000 a year no more no less, I don't think its out of line to provide someone with a base means of keeping themselves alive and out of trouble.

And to go into more detail, when someone doesn't have money, they aren't thinking about going down to atlantic city and looking up Donald Trump and mugging him. They are looking for the local hot spots, like convenience stores, banks, and your next door neighbor. This affects your average every day people, not the doctors, lawyers, and business people making way more money than they need to.

Studies also prove that

So next time you complain about "welfare states," be happy that if something completely shitty happens like the tech sector up and gets transplanted to india overnight or something equally drastic and uncontrollable, be glad you have a safety net. I'll be glad you won't be pointing a shotgun at me demanding the $200 I have in my pocket because you are desperate to live.

Re:OT rant about "welfare states."

[cayenne8]

I agree with you to a point. I believe that we should provide a safety net for the infirmed, the injured, the elderly, and the disabled. I also believe it unemployment insurance...for those times when you need a little help between jobs...a bridge between employment periods.

To me this does not consititute welfare. But, I absolutely do not think we should give anything to those who are able bodied, and can work. There should be no hand outs to those who can work. With unemployment the way it is...do we really need to have all the immigrant workers in right now? If someone is on welfare and can work...let them go to the fields to pick the produce. Once we run out of able bodied US citizens to fill jobs...THEN let in the worker program immigrants.

So, I'm all for a safety net to those who can work, but, all those with a strong back and abilities...no free ride.

Re:OT rant about "welfare states."

[hellfire]

We also have to be careful of the definition of "who is able to work" and what work is. I have a personal problem with the way the "welfare reform" of a few years ago was coming down on anyone who uses welfare is skimming the system. Many of those on welfare were single mothers, and I personally feel raising a child is extremely important and that asking them to work while forcing their children into day care is an unreasonable request and a waste of money. Also, mothers who have debilitated family members who can't care for themselves were also forced into working because they were able bodied, but otherwise devoting their life to caring for their family members.

This is why I resist "welfare reform" and the complaints of a "welfare state" because ideas that try to push away from how our welfare system works now are now causing more and more people to work when they have more important things than flipping burgers or making crappy $2 toys.

Re:OT rant about "welfare states."

[cayenne8]

It's a hard decision...but, I also think...'Hey they shouldn't have been having all those kids'...and really if you can't afford them, you should not have them.

This is tough...but, at some point, you do kind of have to take the incentive to have more kids to get more $$'s on welfare away. I know my answer is tough, and not easy for even me to swallow, but, I don't see other ways. The system we've had in the past tends to self-sustain itself, and hence you have generations of those caught in the vicious cycle of welfare dependancy. It is painful, but, you gotta break that chain somehow...

Re:OT rant about "welfare states."

[instarx]

t's a hard decision...but, I also think...'Hey they shouldn't have been having all those kids'...and really if you can't afford them, you should not have them.

You are looking at the issue of welfare from your white (probably) middle-class perspective. You are making the incorrect assumption that everyone's experiences and world view are the same as yours and the world you live in is the same as the world everyone else lives in. Can you go out and interview for a good job? Probably. People who have come from a poor environment often can't do that - not because they aren't smart or good people, but because they don't have the skills. An office environment to them is like a foreign country.

Expecting people trapped in the welfare loop to simply get a good job or be the first in their family to go to college would be like plopping you or me down in a Tibetan monestary and expecting us to be Buddhist monks, or dropping us in the middle of a Brazilian field and saying "Here, farm coffee for a living" - we couldn't do it. Sure, getting out of the welfare loop can be done but it is harder than you or I can imagine.

You are right - lot's of people ARE caught in a welfare loop, but it isn't all their fault. They are there because their parents were there (who couldn't get good jobs) and their parents before them (who weren't *allowed* good jobs), and their parents before them (who may have been slaves or share-croppers). There is a welfare loop today because we have created and sustained a culture that ignores the real cultural disadvantages handed to a major part of our population by our history of slavery and racism. I think we owe these people something (not Affirmative Action, that's the wrong approach, but that's another post). And yes, I know that not all poor are minorities, but except for the slavery thing all the other points apply. I'm a case in point - read the last paragraph.

I know it sounds like I am a flaming liberal, but I'm not. Slashdot is a science/technical discussion group, and it is salient to point out that just as personal viewpoints should have no place in the physical sciences we must be careful to not let our views in the social issues be determined by our own biases. It is very easy for you or me to just say "Get a job", but there is an old truism that we can't know another until we have walked a mile in his shoes.

And please, don't think that blocks to minority advancement are a thing of the past. I have worked for two major pharmaceutical companies in the New York City area and not one employee in a thousand was black or hispanic except for the mail room and the janitorial departments. I've seen my supervisor hire a white over a black for a semi-professional position because the black had a slight black accent. I KNOW that racism still holds minorities back in ALL areas of the country and so I am not quite so quick as you to say "Just get a job".

Finally, if people who couldn't afford children could not have them then I would not have been born. My parents often did not have a dime to give me to see the Saturday matinee with friends. Today I am in the top 10% of wage-earners in this country. I broke out of that loop, but then it was pretty easy for me -I'm a white male. A black male of the same time in the exact same town would not have had a chance. The situation is only slighty better for minority children born today.

What privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the Florida election of 2000 when a private database company scrubbed thousands of eligible voters from the rolls? Well now one of the co-founders of Database Technologies is back in the headlines -- he's working with law enforcement agents in Florida to create what may soon expand into a national surveillance system. We talk with privacy expert Wayne Madsen, investigative reporter Greg Palast and a top intelligence official from the state of Florida.

A Florida law enforcement data-sharing network is about to go national. In the name of counterterrorism, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are pouring millions of dollars into the system to expand it to local law enforcement agencies across the nation. It's called Matrix, which stands for Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange. According to the Washington Post, the computer network accesses information that has always been available to investigators but brings it together and enables police to access it with extraordinary speed. Civil liberties and privacy groups say the Matrix system dramatically increases the ability of local police to snoop on individuals.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08 /0 7/1427223

The Florida company that built the database was founded by the man behind ChoicePoint and Database Technologies. The companies administered the contract that stripped thousands of African Americans from the Florida voter roles before the 2000 election.

Although narrower in scope than John Poindexter's controversial Terrorist Global Information Awareness program, Matrix may serve a similar purpose because it provides unprecedented access to US residents regardless of their criminal background. And states are eager to participate in the new program. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to launch a pilot program in state law enforcement data-sharing among Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York.

HIPPA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you referring to HIPAA?

The Amendment is already there

[Anonymous Coward]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Privacy

[uxo]

war3rd:

Perhaps *you* do, but most of us probably just like to think we are not being spied on all the time. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to be 'on camera,' so to speak, all the time. And the less privacy we have as a society the more danger there is to those of us who can be victimized by an admittedly small group of criminal offenders. I would like my children to be safe, but there has to be a balance.

Okay, I understand that if for example the government does not require businesses to adequately guard the privacy of your personal information then that leaves you vulnerable to identity theft. But with regards to video surveillance, do you think your privacy should extend outside your home?

How many surveillance cameras did I appear on today? At least five: a traffic camera, the company parking lot camera, the company building camera, Quiznos' camera and 7-Eleven's camera. I didn't give any of them a second thought until just now. Do you think any of them should be prohibited?

Only Sheep Have No Rights

[instarx]

Tracking where you go (EZPass, cell phone), what you buy (credit card, buyer's programs, RFIDs)

Although RFIDs will allow stores to track what you buy, that is a trivial abuse of RFIDs compare to what the government can do with them. The real risk is that RFIDs will allow the government to set up the most efficient domestic spying network ever envisioned. Simply by putting scanners on streets the government will be able to tell where you (and everyone else) goes. They will be able to tell who you associate with by the tags in the clothing of the people you talk to, which political rallies you attend, and where you travel, how many times you walked by the Whitehouse or into an opposition political party's office or officer Smith's ex-wife's house. They will be able to ID everyone at a political rally just by walking in the crowd with a portable scanner linked to a database of RFID/names. Congress has repeatedly rejected the idea of a national identity card for citizens, but unless something is done the government will soon be able to track everything you do literally from crib to grave. Just because they CAN do it does not mean we have to stand by and let it happen.

You stated above that because technology has advanced, privacy can no longer be expected. In reality technology has not negated our rights, but it has made them much more difficult to keep and defend. The right to freedom and privacy must be technology independent. If it isn't then we can all kiss our so-called free American asses goodbye.

About the only thing you are really free to do is act in your own home.

You are the kind of citizen dictators have wet dreams about. You have already given up your rights without anyone even having to take them away from you. You are a sheep. OBJECT when Homeland security takes away another freedom! OBJECT when Homeland Security sets up yet another data-mining database to learn more about law-abiding Americans' travel histories. OBJECT when the Anti-Terrorism Task Force recruits your local police to spy on groups opposing the administration's policies. OBJECT when the administration forces protestors onto buses and takes them to a fenced area out of sight and hearing of the press! OBJECT when the Justice Department asks for your medical records. Don't sit there and bleat" baa, baa, baaa we have no rights".