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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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/

[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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

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 ...

.

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.

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".

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.

Summary of discussion

[Phantasmo]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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: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.

...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.

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."

[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.