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?"
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
Somehow these appointments remind me of 1984.
Along the lines of the ministry of love being where you go to get the living shit beat out of you it seems the ministry of privacy being formed in america is where all of your privacy will be stripped away.
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.
This is worse than hiring a sex predator to be the janitor in a preschool.
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.
Not only is the henhouse being raided at the DHS, but Bush has packed the EPA and FDA with industry cronies. He has turned agencies created to protect consumers and citizens into agencies that work to protect corporate malfeasance. And it's really worse than the fox guarding the henhouse. It's like the first fox inviting other foxes in because there are too many chickens for one fox to eat.
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.
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.
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
Remember the Vioxx vote to keep it on the market? Affiliations between 10 of the scientists that served on the committee and the three manufacturers of Cox-2 inhibitors were discovered -- a violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which prohibits scientists with direct conflicts of interest from serving on panels offering advise to federal regulatory agencies. What does that mean? Pharmaceutical shills are all aboard the FDA panels and they vote with Big Pharam dollars. Another 17 scientists had other ties to drug manufacturers, though not the three with products under consideration at the meeting. According to a New York Times analysis of the votes, the advisory committee would have voted for taking Bextra and Vioxx off the market beacuse of its risks had the shill-scientists been excluded from the vote. Here is the CSPI analysis of the FDA Advisory Panel: CSPI found ten (10) physician-researchers a/k/a Big Pharma Shills with direct ties to Pfizer, Merck or Novartis (including G.D. Searle and Pharmacia, which are now part of Pfizer). They were: * Steven Abramson, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Division of Rheumatology, NYU School of Medicine, New York. Has an interest in Merck. (FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Congressional Hearing Transcripts, 7/20/99) Received speaker's honoraria or consulting fees from Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, and Pharmacia. (http://www.freecme.com/gcourse_view.php?course_id =1824; accessed 2/22/05) Consultant for Searle, and a member of the Speakers Bureau for Pfizer. Received an unrestricted educational grant from Pharmacia. (http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/2A3 45DDE45B8C851852569AE004B52DC; accessed 2/23/05) * Joan M. Bathon, M.D. Professor of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University. Received consultancies and/or honoraria from Centocor, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, totaling less than $10,000 per year. ( Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:3432-43.) Received ad hoc consultant fees and support for this research from Immunex. (Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Jun;46(6):1443-50.) Received support for research on etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis from Immunex, Inc. (N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1586-93.) Consultant for: National Advisory Board CTLA4-IG Project, Bristol Myers Squibb, 2000; International Advisory Board, Anti-TNF Project, Centocor, 2000; National Advisory Board, Anti-TNF Project, Knoll Pharmaceuticals, 2000; National Advisory Board, Anti-TNF Project, Immunex and Wyeth, 1998-99; National Advisory Board, Cox-2 Project, Searle, 1998-2000; Consultant, Bradykinin receptor antagonist project, Fournier Pharmaceuticals, 1996; Consultant, Anti-inflammatory initiative, Procter & Gamble. (http://www.fda.gov/cder/audiences/acspage/CVs/Bat hon,%20Joan%20M..pdf; accessed 2/23/05) * John J. Cush, M.D., Article on concomitant leflunomide therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable doses of methotrexate listed potential conflicts of interest due to consultancies, honoraria and grants received. (Ann Intern Med. 2002 Nov 5;137(9):726-33.) Consultant: Abbott, Amgen, Wyeth, Centocor, Pfizer, Regeneron; Disclosure: Current Investigator: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Pfizer. (J Rheumatol. 2005 Feb;32(2):203-7.) ) Received grants from Abbott, Amgen/Weiss, Aventis, Centocor, IDEC/Genentech, Isis Pharmaceuticals. (http://www.fbhc.org/cme/abt04202/index.cfm; accessed 2/23/05) Dr. Cush is a member of The Cadeuceus Group, LLC. (http://www.fbhc.org/cme/abt04202/index.cfm; accessed 2/23/05) * Robert H. Dworkin, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics/Statistics and Pu