Slashdot Mirror
Rosenzweig Now Chairman of DHS Privacy Board
An anonymous reader writes "Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative lawyer and prominent proponent of the Pentagon's controversial Total Information Awareness project, has been
appointed the first chairman of the Department of Homeland Security's privacy board. This follows the appointment of an executive of Gator to the board. Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that, rather than viewing protection of privacy as priority, Rosenzweig 'tends to view privacy as something to be circumvented.' Are the foxes guarding the henhouse when it comes to government and privacy?"
Are the foxes guarding the henhouse when it comes to government and privacy?
Why no, it seems that the Gator is guarding the henhouse in this case.
Get your Unix fortune now!
I'm sorry, but after the news that a Gator executive was being appointed to the board, did anyone really expect this Privacy board to be anything of the sort? I'm not an American, but if I were, I'd be writing to my government representative now asking for help on this issue.
Personally, I look at this issue like I do with European software patents. If ordinary people don't stand up and lobby their government representative, then nothing will change. If you believe strongly about this, then try to do something about it. Make your views known
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
On the Patriot Act:
The 9/11 Commission has emphasized the importance of the Patriot Act and considers it to be an essential weapon in the global war on terrorism. Prior to September 11, there was a wall of legal and regulatory policies that prevented effective sharing of information between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Read More
Paul Rosenzweig On Transparency:
After all, why do we seek transparency in the first instance? Not for its own sake. Without need, transparency is little more than voyeurism. Rather, the reason for transparency is oversight - Read More
Nothing to see here
They have selected these Patriots to ensure that there is no risk of Privacy invading The United States of America. Over their dead bodies, there will be none of this Privacy in America.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Oh come on - isn't it obvious?
Privacy is something that is entirely the opposite of the DHS's goal - therefore, isn't it obvious that they will hire experts in how to remove privacy? The DHS's privacy department isn't about protecting privacy (because that would be counter to the DHS's mission) but rather how to remove privacy so the DHS can do its job. Of course they will mask this in doublespeak - just like what was called the department of war half a century ago got renamed to the department of defence.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The way things are going in the western world at the moment I do fear that we are sleep walking towards some kind of Orwellian nightmare. We face a determined foe who are willing to die for what they believe in. Yet we are willing to throw aside our own hard won values of freedom and justice in the interest of "safety".
Freedom is Slavery was a propaganda slogan from the book 1984, designed to keep the masses happy with being oppressed. Every time I hear Tony Blair or George Bush reducing our rights to "protect freedom" I'm reminded of this.
Well, if you're in the U.S., and you're concerned about these events (it's looking more and more like an anti-privacy group), might I suggest contacting the privacy office or going directly to the dept. of homeland security to let them know how you feel as a taxpayer about the appointment of individuals with a less than stellar record when it comes to privacy concerns?
Might be a good idea to contact your senators and representatives too.
It seems to me that privacy only matters if there is a threat of sanction for the private behavior. Hiding stuff tends to add a layer of unhealthy psych because of the continual threats to the integrity of the cloak.
The real need is to roll back the ability of the mob to make your life miserable if you choose to think or do something that is unconventional.
In the long run, which is going to leave us in a better position? Should we be fighting to maintain privacy in the face of increasingly efficient snooping, or fighting for freedom of thought and action?
Not that anyone's really going sacrifice much to achieve either of those goals . . . .
No more cults.
Countries don't refuse to do business with other countries because they don't like them much. Money is money, and America is now and will always be a huge market. We import everything, and export cash. It's a fact: we run a huge trade deficit pretty much always.
Additionally, the Bush administration is not trying to shut the borders. The borders are completely porous in virtually every way. More than a million illegals came across the border last year.
Pop-quiz: who was Germany's top trading partner in 1938?
France.
When will people stop giving their allegiance to labels?
When will people start leaving their parties (Republican or Democrat) when their parties move away from what they believe?
The answer is probably when there is a no longer a two party system. The Republicans can treat their conservative base with contempt, and then still get their support by fear: "look at what the alternative would be!" The Democrats do the same thing on their side of the fence.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yet we are willing to throw aside our own hard won values of freedom and justice in the interest of "safety".
I'll give you a quote:
"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." --Hermann Goering
See, here's the real lie. People believe they are protecting the values, not throwing them away. Of course the original quote was about war, now it is about terror.
"Pacifists" are opponents of the politic. In this context, civil rights activists. They get discredited like dreamers, idealists which will expose the country to danger just like pacifists.
"Lack of patriotism" is of course a good mix of nationalism (American/Non-american), racism (Caucasian/Arab) and religion (Christian/Muslim). It plays on basic "Principles are fine, but now we have to protect our own" self-preservation.
Finally, "exposing the country to danger" is no longer about war, it is even "better". With war, you always know roughly who, where and how it will play out. With terror, the "danger" is everywhere, all the time and invisible. How can you argue that you are NOT exposing it to danger?
Noone dares speaks of such things. It is not "politically correct" to quote Nazi leaders, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and other examples of people that have manipulated great crowds. Naturally, we don't want to inspire more. But it also means people are oblivious to the fact that they are being manipulated. It cuts both ways.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Eh...some of this "speak" isn't so new.
"more privacy in the form of total surveillance" --> HUAC, McCarthy et al.?
"government transparency in the form of increased classification of documents, and high moral standards in the form of flagrant House ethics rule violations" --> Nixon?
"smaller government in the form of increased federal spending" AND "isolationist foreign policy in the form of overseas force projection" --> Reagan?
American conservatives have this wonderful way of completely ignoring their own philosophy.
Good point. Indeed, it's worse than that -- much worse.
Who funded the Nazi war machine? Prescott Bush, among others. Prescott and his partners made a ton of money banking for the Nazis -- investing in the Wermacht -- throughout the 1930s. Not illegal at the time. A brutal demonstration of man's inhumanity to man, perhaps; but not illegal at the time.
Herr Bush, of course, is father and grandfather, respectively, to two generations of American Presidents (and one generation of CIA Director).
See also From Hitler to MX, documenting other examples of 1930's American investment in the Nazi war machine (and how, after the war, American-back ventures survived unbombed, while their competitors where destroyed). Companies involved include General Electric (sold advanced submarine tech for U-boats), and one or more (I forget which) of the big oil firms.
War is -- dammit -- good for business.
-kgj
-kgj
Has anyone else noticed that at every chance, Bush has sent the worst possible person to run the government agency that's supposed to protect our rights? It's not just incompetence anymore - this guy hates America.
--
make install -not war
Meh! I posted the above, but apparently the great Slashdot didn't see fit to log me on even though I told it to. I'm certainly not afraid to criticize dead conservatives.
Anyway, one more observation on this topic: conservatives tried to excuse all of the above inconsistencies by saying thay they were for the sake of fighting communism. What are we doing today to keep the charade going? Fighting terrorism! That's really the most relevant parallel between 1984 and today's situation: just like Ingsoc, the U.S. always needs an enemy.
Any money has _no_ intrinsic value. What matters is what you can buy with that money.
If a country sells you ore for 1 million dollars, the value of that million dollars is _only_ what they can buy in return with it. No more, no less. If they can't buy much, then they're giving away their ore to you for free.
So I wouldn't put much hope in an economy that _only_ exports cash. That's an economy that in reality exports _nothing_.
If all you export is printed bits of paper, expect the value of those to plummet very very fast.
The dollar until now did have the saving grace of being perceived as _the_ international standard, and as something worth having reserves of. But again, on the assumption that they can at some point buy stuff with those dollars.
As that perception starts to fade, well, you're already seeing the effects. A huge trade deficit == a fast drop in currency value, until the value of _real_ exports matches that in imports. If you ever wondered why the dollar took a nose dive recently, now you know why: because of that trade defficit.
Want to export even more money? Well, then be prepared for the dollar value to fall even more.
Just keep it up. By the time your salary will be worth a tenth of what it's worth today, well, maybe you'll see what was wrong with that policy.
"Countries don't refuse to do business with other countries because they don't like them much."
True. But they might limit how much they're willing to sell you, based on how much you can actually afford to buy. And by "afford", I mean the value of your _exports_.
"Money is money"
Precisely because of that. What they're interested is what you can get for that money, not how fast you can print bits of paper.
"America is now and will always be a huge market"
China and India are both even bigger markets, and you don't see them being able to afford the same level of imports as you do.
A huge market that can't pay is not much of a market.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
As someone who considered themselves conservative before the religious right got involved, these people are an affront to true conservatives. Changing the ethics rules to favor one of their own crooked leadership, labeling someone who volunteered for service in Viet Nam "Hanoi John" because he later protested a loser war while promoting a dope-smoking, draft-dodging, Conneticut Yankee pretending to be a Texan, running up record federal deficits, and passing legislation to try and override state courts are all actions real conservatives should find hugely revolting.
Conservatives are not your enemy. The Republican party pays lip service to its conservative roots the same way it pays lip service to the religious right. The Republicans are all about money and power at a time the Democrats have gone completely nutless. A lot of times these days you're picking the party that sickens you the least.
And what's with the religious right? Why aren't all those right wing protestants having a fit about Bush kneeling in front of the Pope's body? Hello, McFly! All the world wondering after the beast...any of that ringing any bells? Or are you just all up about gays getting married these days?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage