Slashdot Mirror
The Privacy Candidate
Alsee writes "Wired News reports 'electronic civil libertarians' hearts are a-twitter' over US Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton's bold stance on the right to privacy. Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.' Clinton gave a speech last June to the American Constitution Society (text, WMF) in which she addressed electronic surveillance, consumer opt-in vs. opt-out, cyber-security, commercial and government handling of personal data, data offshoring, data leaks, and even genetic discrimination." Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
Not only would it sway my vote, but a positive stance on privacy would damn-near guarantee it. Over the years, the U.S. government has eroded its citizens' rights to the point of absurdity. This latest president has only made a bad situation worse.
There are other issues at stake, of course, but none quite as dear as those that hit close to home. I'm tired of watching my privacy dwindle away, and I want it to stop.
Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
Yes, sure I --
*bzzzt!*
Ouch! Er... I mean, no, no I wouldn't.
The real question is, did she say what she did because she wanted to preach to the choir, or because she actually believes in privacy?
It was the American Constitution Society after all...
A girl!
if privacy isn't important, why do homes have curtains?
Clinton gave a speech last June to the American Constitution Society
Uh-huh. Tell me what she says at the Society for People Unreasonably Afraid That Their Children Are Going To Die in Terrorist Attacks, and then we'll decide if she gets points for this.
Not bashing her just beacuse, but her history does not support her intent to protect privacy. This is just poliical rhetoric to get elected. ( typical of *all* candidates as they ramp up towards an election )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No, a strong stance on the right to privacy won't sway my vote. All politicians of all levels of government should respect this, regardless of party.
However, a stance against personal privacy will strongly sway me against you. Fortunately for Hillary and other pro-privacy advocates, many candidates are easy to admit they'd spy, loot, and plunder in the name of "the children".
I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.
Wasn't she the Senator who wanted to force government regulation of video games?
So, um, no. I don't think I'd vote for her regardless of what her stance of privacy is.
Now, you may say that this is not germane to the privacy issue. But it is, because it shows that Hillary will say anything, at any time, to acquire and hold power. The value of her promises is null. The value of her insight is null. The value of her candidacy is negative, because it is most likely going to give the Presidency to those she claims to fight, while mimicking as closely as possible.
While it is nice to see someone support privacy, there is no way I would support Clinton in '08. There are just too many other issues where her stance is totally the opposite of how I feel. She could promise free gold bricks for every man, woman and child in the US and I still would not vote for her.
Besides, we had two Bushes, and now two Clintons?!? Call me crazy, but something just dosent sit right with me on this...
I won't be voting for Bush.
> I'm tired of watching my privacy dwindle away
Haven't you read spun's journal? If you don't like the existing social contract you're free to move to another country. According to them you're only hurting the greater good of society by insisting that you have any Constitutionally guaranteed rights, or that the government has any Constitutionally imposed limitations on power.
If one believes spun's journal entry then the US is, by all rights, a socialist state with a Constitution only for the sake of convenient argument when media releases and sound bites are needed.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Hillary Clinton's idea of "privacy" is about the same as that behind the "Medical Privacy Act". This made it a Federal offense to disclose medical records, standardized the records keeping, and made it all available to the government upon request. To her "privacy" is that between civilians; the government and its employees are a whole 'nother matter.
She's a carpetbagger who stayed with her cheating husband for political gain. Why would I trust a word coming out of her mouth?
...what events in Clinton's life might have motivated her push for more privacy? Muhahahaha!
However, show me ANY politician that has kept their campaign promises. Ever.
I can't think of any myself. . . . . .
The candidates have a bad habit of latching onto a current high profile issue
( ergo, privacy ) and making all the claims in the world about how they plan
to ' fix ' it. Time passes and the same issues are still issues years later
after the aforementioned politician has been elected.
To answer the question, I would say yes ONLY IF the candidate actually stuck to
their guns and delivered on their campaign promises.
Until there is some kind of accountability for all the promises they make, then
my answer is, unfortunately, no. It's just pre-election fluff imo.
Should make it a provision for re-election. You don't deliver on your past promises,
you become ineligible for any further terms.
One of NORML's primary arguments about private (ie: 'at home') consumption is that it is protected under the Constitutional "right to privacy".
...Because those the rocks that many ships have wrecked upon.
Hillary? Is this just going to be about electronic surveillance and security of digital information repositories?
Or are you going to tackle the larger issue of protecting personal activities in private spaces.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I mean, I'm posting this over a wifi connection that I perceive to be secure, using a name and password that I believe is uncompromised...
Then again, I am using a cantenna to connect to a router that is perceived to be secure from the viewpoint of the guy providing me with free bandwidth, shared iTunes, and an OS with remote support enabled, and the 'guest' account allowed to be part of the 'everyone' group...
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Personally speaking I'd much rather have someone who @##$s up foreign policy without getting anyone killed, than someone who *(@$&E#(s it up just as much, but gets thousands of people killed in the process.
Not only is the housing bubble worse than you think...
I spent the summer in downtown San Diego. Being homeless I had little better to do than watch the city lights and window curtains. After five months of careful observation I have determined the following: greater than 50% of the apartment/condo units (excepting the SROs and the bug-infested dives which most of the lower income people crowd into like sardines) in downtown San Diego have been unoccupied for longer than two months.
I can see why some of the homeless are forced into homeless recycling programs due to their demonstrated lack of respect for surroundings (trash, vandalism, excessive drinking or hard drug use leading to large parties with any number of people who also leave trash, take part in vandalism, participate in excessive drinking or hard drug use, leading to theft and crime and etc. etc. etc.)...
But there truly is no housing shortage. There isn't a shortage of jobs for people with my qualifications either. It's all just another segment of the social game.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
I've reached a point of total cynicism in voting. I assume that everything a candidate claims to believe or promises to do is a lie. I either vote for an incumbent if I like their record, or for the newcomer if I don't like the incumbent's record.
Until we get a new system that allows the people to throw out someone in office, I won't vote for anyone based on their campaign.
I don't think it's necessary to read much further. The "social contract you were born into" is not the social contract that exists today. Today's so-called social contract is worse. Those that have been around the block a few times recognize it as such, and further recognize that it can be changed.
Of course the right to privacy is far more important than Iran and North Korea getting their hands on nuclear weapons,
Absolutely anonymous troll, WE MUST GIVE UP OUR PRIVACY to prevent Iran and North Korea getting their hands on nuclear weapons. WTF? I don't understand how those arguments are related.
BTW, you do realize that that pussy bush didn't manage to prevent North Korea getting their hands on nuclear weapons?
Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
Yes, but this candidate's support of national health care cancels it out. I don't want to be forced to pay for other people's health care (especially filtered through government bureaucracy, ugh).
Let the flames begin...
Vote Libertarian
Not hers. She's a US Senator, former First Lady, and the democratic front-runner for the presidential nomination in 2008. She's been in the public eye for years, she's wielded real power for years, is perhaps the most influential woman in the US after Oprah (seriously...); and yet our privacy has continued to be diminished on her watch without so much as a peep. You apparently have to go back to a talk she gave to the American Constitution Society to even know what her stance on personal privacy is, and I had to go to Wikipedia to find out who they are. Where's the public outrage if you care about privacy so much, Hillary? Lord knows you don't have a hard time getting in front of a TV camera with a chance to express it.
Will I support a candidate who's serious about protecting personal privacy? Hell yes. It's the most important issue I can think of. Hillary Clinton isn't that person, and neither is any other mainstream candidate. Pretty fucking sad.
Game... blouses.
My problem with this is the use of the phrase "right to privacy." Clinton is a brilliant lawyer, and I know that she understands what "right to privacy" means in the legal sense. The "right to privacy" is the (supposedly) constitutionally protected right for a person to make decisions intimately affecting their own lives. This "right to privacy" allows a person to raise and educate their children as they see fit (allowing Amish people to educate their kids at home despite laws mandating public education for all), have an abortion prior to the time the fetus is viable, marry across racial lines, use birth control, cohabitate, and a few other like things.
This "right to privacy" does not apply to personal information out there on the internet. There might be laws protecting some aspects of this information, but it isn't a constitutional thing.
Clinton knows this. Non-lawyer tech geeks don't know this. She's using this lack of knowledge about what the legal term "right to privacy" means, intentionally allowing techies to confuse it with their concept of right to privacy, trying to attract votes.
Don't be fooled. The right to have information about yourself be private is purely statutory (without such a statute, there is no such right). This is not a constitutional right. It is fleeting. Don't let Clinton convince you that judges would extend this "right to privacy" to personal information (the judges know better, just like Clinton does).
Civil liberties, resistance to the surveillance/police state, privacy, being willing to stand up for citizens against the corporate looters, a decent stand on the RKBA. Those are all very important. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is only on the right side of one of these what with her DLC-"triangulation" strategy. Give me a real Democrat or even a Barry Goldwater Republican.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
OK...how she she be for privacy but also for open records to enforce the DMCA?
She lobbied for DMCA enforcement through methods that violate your privacy.... but then to another auduance she says we need more privacy?
So, a normal politican... a different stance for a different groups.
Privately: NO
Do not fuck with women, they are evil, heartless bitches Wouldn't Iran being pwned by a girl add insult to injury?
Call yourself a patriot, hell hath no fury!
...that even among other such politicians, Hillary is one of the most blatant, shameless populists ever to have walked the Earth. Her perspectives, her very mind itself in its' entirety is completely for sale, for the purpose of gaining votes.
She might be making noises about the "right to privacy," right now, but please try and remember that when Jack Thompson and the other usual suspects were screeching and crying about violence in video games, she supported that, too. She tries to determine which way the wind is blowing, and when she suspects that she has, then jumps on what she feels is the dominant voter bandwagon at any given point in time. But she is not the archetypical Slashbot's friend...or really anyone else's, for that matter.
Why is he not the for runner of this article? He is greatly opposed to the govt's invasion of privacy, he strongly opposed the REALID Act, and he continues to argue for INDIVIDUAL'S rights.
One of the top 5 issues that slashdotters are probably concerned about are globalization/free trade/offshoring. Unfortunately, her views on globalization are not too slashdot friendly http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_C linton_Free_Trade.htm. This is of course assuming that pro-free trade promotes offshoring/offsourcing while protectionism would not. Her views on globalization have been flip-flopping recently, so it will be interesting to see what side she takes when election time comes.
My personal problem with globalization are an escalating trade deficit combined with opening up free-trade to countries with questionable human rights issues-- something Hillary has supported in the past. A good video to check out would be Mardi Gras: Made in China (Caution: There are two trailer options, one is work safe, one is not, choose wisely).
"..and you can take THAT to the bank.."
I am traditionally a more conservative voter. I normally would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is pro-choice. However, the ability to reinforce the privacy laws that we have eroded over the last 20 years, I believe would be worth the risk. Besides it is about damn time the US got off its idiotic old boys club and elected a woman.
P.S. I didn't vote for Bill either of his two terms, although I will say overall he was a good president.
So since ab initio you declare all politicians equal (-ly corrupt) and the differences to be merely a matter of taste, there is no point in actually doing the work and comparing what they actually have to say, or their actual programs, thereby letting them get away with not even having real solid programs anymore even more easily. Well done. Very convenient for you, very lazy. And on top of it all you can even look down on those stupid suckers who actually care about the political process!
Your attitude is a real threat to democracy, and stupid, and self-fulfilling. Thank you for doing your part in killing honest political and social discourse on the issues that matter. Yes, such discourse is difficult and tiring. It involves questioning whether Clinton was, as another poster put it, preaching to the choir or actually serious. But this discourse is the core political process of democracy. As long as you don't actively participate in it and try to get others engaged as well you have no right whatsoever to complain about the state of politics.
Unfortunately, I suspect that HC would say what ever was necessary to win, and then wouldn't follow through on her promises. I'm not a Republican - and if I were (and I could be objective about it) I'd want Clinton to win. Examine her voting record - she's very conservative. I don't think Obama is much of a choice either. Frankly, I'm hoping that Gore runs again.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
Seriously who wrote that question and how long have they lived in the US? I think anyone with a brain at this point knows a politicians words mean nothing.
The real question is:
1) Who's funding her and do those people have anything to gain by eroding privacy?
2) What's her previous track record? What was she doing about the Patriot Act? etc etc.
What are all of the anti-gin slashdotters going to do when the Government continues to assert that your rights come FROM the Government. Hillary Clinton is a joke. The last Clinton regime armed China. The next will prevent any more pesky assertion of indiviual rights. Welcoem to the collective, I hope you folks are ready to immerser yourselves in a society that allows privacy as long as you toe the party line. Night folks.
I do not believe for a nano second that Hillary Clinton means that. She might want YOU to believe that so that you will VOTE for her.
...stand on the First Amendment? Remember Hillary was the Senator leading the charge against Take2/Rockstar over Hot Coffee.
Justice Brandeis called it "... the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized men. "
No, because a politician does not have to be held accountable to what he says in a campaign. They can (and often do) lie their backsides off to get a vote and never intend to do what they promised. I would pay more attention to how they
- have
voted as an determination if I would vote for them or not. Remember, their only job is to make sure they get re-elected. Every thing else is secondary to that role. MichaelBeware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
For a candidate running for Senator or Representative.
For a presidential candidate, their stand on privacy really doesn't matter, just like their stand on a whole host of other things that Congress gets to determine doesn't matter.
Now, a stand on privacy is not to be confused with a stand on constitutional rights. Whether mailling lists are opt-in or not, or what kind of opt-in they have to be, isn't a constitutional issue. But having a president who believes being president doesn't give them the right to listen to my phone calls, or detain me without trial, is DEFINITELY a constitutional issue.
So, having a stand on privacy is a non-issue for me. If you want to grab my attention, promise to recind every invasive executive order from the Bush presidency. Promise to avoid signing statements. Promise to institute executive orders that prohibit you and future presidents and their respective executive branches from taking the same liberties with our liberties as this one has.
Taking a stand on who can see my credit report is a cop-out when the issue of when, and if, I get to see a lawyer is on the table.
paintball
Did you invade her privacy to determine that she's a girl?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
/not paranoid
//why, what did *they* tell you?
Let me get this straight. You're
with me to New Zealand.
Yes, it's important. It's one of the paramount issues we face today. Hell, I'd not only support a candidate that talked about privacy (there aren't any in Sweden), I'd even start a new party focused on privacy and the right to a private life.
Oh, wait. I did. And it was reasonably successful too, although the privacy debate is just starting out in Sweden...
I do not trust Hillary Clinton at all. She is a blatant political opportunist of the worst sort. I have no doubt that she would talk loudly about privacy when anybody was looking, then implement totally opposite policies to gain political favor.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Someone neglected to include our current president on that memo. He's made plenty of pseudo-law with his ongoing abuse of signing statements.
Ah yes, "love it or leave it".
Hey here's an idea: you're fucking up my country. Why don't you get the hell out?
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Give me a break!
Hear Hear.
We The People have an active part, indeed, play an indispensable role in the constant re-shaping of our society. It is not now as it has ever been, nor will it ever again be as it is today. Only through our hard work, diligence, and high regard for one another's Honor can we hope to improve our quality of life and allow us, our children, and their children Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Oh, and I'm not talking about the United States of America. What I just wrote goes for all men and women, regardless of race, religion, creed, or nationality.
The right to Privacy is just a subset of the greater Rights we humans claim for ourselves.
(Pass the tissue, queue the marching band!)
"Piter, too, is dead."
Interestingly enough, he's also a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Congressman Paul ran for president once before as a libertarian candidate, but was defeated (no suprise, since only republicrats are allowed to win) He has since aligned himself as a Republican congressman, but maintains libertarian values and has consistently voted against bad policy (he voted against the Patriot act, against Iraq, against the Military Commissions act, and against the John Warner Defense Authorization Act)
As far as I've read, Ron Paul has never made a campaign promise that he didn't keep. If he makes it onto the presidential ballot, he has my vote.
"Lame" - Galaxar
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe she came out in support of, and voted for, the so-called Patriot Act. She's not been very helpful to LGBT people seeking marriage rights in her area of the country (which borders on privacy in my book.. government shouldn't be in the business of legislating morality).
If she had a proven track record of standing up against government intrusions you would not need to twist my arm. We are in dire need of female leadership in this country, just not hers.
http://www.ronpaul.org/
This is the libertarian that actually has a chance... because he's running as a Republican!
TECHNICALLY... she's a Rodham, not a Clinton :P
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Not if it's Hillary.
privacy rights from those who brought us the dmca?
I'm sure few people here actually read this. I can hardly blame you -- it's long, and it's mostly just bland generalities, with the details both rare and disappointing.
There's nothing new in the speech. She talks a lot about data breaches. Those are devastating, sure, but they're hardly an "issue." Being against data breaches offends no constituency (who *isn't* against them?) -- it's like being "tough on crime." She seems to be against a lot of things that nobody is for.
However, she spends very little time on what most of us think of when we talk about "privacy" -- that is, the government's prohibition, under the fourth amendment, against searching us without probable cause, and without a warrant. In fact, she comes to the conclusion that the warrantless searches the Bush administration are doing are probably fine. She believes in the same odious calculation that defines rights and security as mutually exclusive constraints, that have to be "balanced."
Rather, she only takes Bush to task for not letting congress in on the action. That is, had only Bush asked congress for "authorization" -- which would surely have been forthcoming -- everything would have been okay. "Let is in on the action," she seems to say, "and we'll make sure you get the warrants so your policies will be easier to sell to the masses." Instead of real criticism of a policy that's both illegal and that actually makes us less safe, we get criticism over tactics, and parochial self-interest.
The title and blurb for this are completely misleading.
She voted for the Patriot Act. Last time the Dems had control of congress they fell all over themselves to pass the CALEA, promote the Clipper chip, pass all kinds of anti-money-laundring (anti-financial-privacy) laws and anything else they could do. They have the House and Senate now. Let's see them repeal the Patriot Act, and some of the money laundring laws, and pass strong criminal penalties for government agents who snoop where they shouldn't snoop. Let's see the pass a law prohibiting the TSA from asking to see passenger ID. Oh wait, it was Hillary's husband who made an executive order that required passengers to present ID, in response to a mechanical failure on an airplane. Yeah I'm sure Hillary is a crusader for privacy rights, just like John "Money Laundry" Kerry and Al "Clipper Chip" Gore were.
I think Arnold said it best from a fiscal standpoint, since your only complaint is about money:
Providing children with primary and preventative health care reduces the likelihood that they will later require treatment for chronic long-term conditions.But then again, this is a political matter, and as such is open to pointless debate because nobody here is going to convince another here that they're opinion is any better than everyone elses.
Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
I might, if I believed she actually meant it.
Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
"Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?"...yes, it would, but certainly not Hillary, not with her background, but any consideration would have to take into account all the issues..
IMO, the US has had quite enough with the bush/clinton dynasty for a quarter century now to show that aristocracy doesn't work and is a bad idea. I'm sorry but we aren't supposed to have some sort of hereditary "lords" class. It's just slap wrong. 300 million and change now in this nation, how about we give some other folks a crack at it, eh?
How about a candidate who is concerned about ALL your rights, all of them up and down the list, and has the best track record bar none in Congress to protect your rights *and* your wallet, and really groks what national security and soverignty is really about and wouldn't try to pass off blood profits wars for the transnationals as being in our best interest, someone like Ron Paul, who has an exploratory committe open now?
If he got 1/50th of the news coverage Hillary gets from the controlled propaganda press, or even 1/10th the coverage that Obama dude gets, he'd be the next president handily. Well, given we clean up blackbox voting first of course.
I cannot vote for a fanatic successoholic like Hillary Rodham Clinton. What happens when our interests don't jive with her need to be remembered favorably in history?
I work at a resort where Hilary came to stay on a few occasions. I got to speak with her for a few minutes each time (one before the 06 election and the other one after).Note this was RIGHT after the 06 election... I am talking a few days, so I addressed her as a momber of congress, not so much a future presidential candidate.I asked her this exact question, well along the lines of our current president has been trampleing on our civil rights be it on the net, the phone systems, what we do in our own homes. Will you be looking out for us and perhaps reversing some of the recent invasions, nsa wire taps and federal raids of medical marijuana patients.(I'm in New York, her state, we do not allow medical marijuana...yet) She said that she was very upset with these as well, she said something along the lines of some papers in the works to attempt to prevent further erosions but didn't give me any further details.
take it with a grain of salt as anybody can say anything, but to me, she seemed sincere.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
This is very odd - this is the same politician who signed on as a sponsor of a flag burning amendment (thus proving she doesn't understand the 1st amendment, it's the unpopular speech that needs protecting). I guess that means we can burn flags in private ...
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck load of tapes
"Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?"
Probably not in most cases, but certainly not where Mrs. "which way is the wind blowing today?" Clinton is concerned.
she voted to renew the PATRIOT Act not one year ago.
If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.
i'm *really curious* there has to a catch there, did they mention sexual relationships or something along those lines?
on a serious note would this sway my vote, hell yes - show me a cookie and i'ma grab for it.
She's talking about consumer privacy protections. This is good but the real danger to us is government snooping, not marketing databases, and she wants to continue the government snooping or expand it as much as possible. I'm happy for consumer protection but that's not what I want. I want a candidate who will scale back and cripple government surveillance programs. Ron Paul is the only such candidate that I'm aware of now.
No more ruling families in America. People voted Bush in because they figured he did well enough to become governor and "hey, he'd at least get his father's advisors." Fat lot that did him! Picked all the rotten ones and didn't listen to the good ones.
Clinton is right out. There are better candidates out there.
But to answer the original question I think privacy in America is sorely lacking. We need much tighter controls on our personal information. If not the outright barring of its sale or transfer. But I don't think this is at all possible. To start LexisNexis is sponsored by Congress! At best we'll get some wrist slapping and rhetoric a la Los Alamos National Laboratory. Yeah, several break ins later they're still as secure as a cardboard box. We'll get our privacy about the same time Los Alamos is secure.
Note: He's being sarcastic.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
I think we as Americans should have a right to privacy, but the simple fact is that we don't. We need a constitutional ammendment that provides this right explicitly before this issue can really be confronted head-on. Until then, citizens will constantly try to prove to the government that they own this right and the government will keep pushing the limits on what information it can gather from us.
will sooner or later give you shit... ;)
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I'll volunteer my services to her campaign if she actually means this. Hopefully Obama will take the same position, so we get a Dem candidate worth voting for either way. And please, for the love of god, take a stance against DRM before it makes the whole debate pointless by locking everyone into a system that presumes criminal intent in any use of consumer electronics.
"Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?"
/. should either...
Absolutely not. No one else here on
Privacy is one of a looong list of un-alienable rights that are set aside, untouchable, before government was created (by us), and given authority (by us), to act on our behalf.
If a candidate wants to impress me, they damn well better have a record of defending and upholding the Constitution, because without it we're screwed, not that any of us are "free" anymore anyways... And Hillary's record is bleak, she is pure fucking evil, a lying, conniving opportunist, bent upon forcing socialism upon us all.
I don't know who to despise more: the non-conservative Republicans or the non-liberal Democrats. We voters have to drag these cocksuckers back to the beginning and demand they OBEY the Constitution and uphold it, THAT is Job one.
No, I don't want that. I'd rather that the candidate express his/her true opinion and clearly represent their values when running for election. I'd rather vote for someone who I know disagrees with me on some issues, but who I can reasonably predict will act in keeping with their values.
It's called integrity.
In this last election that was the issue that led me to vote for Bush instead of Kerry - I may not have liked Bush's position on business, but I still have no idea what Kerry's position is. After two terms (and two of my votes) I'm satisfied that Bush acted in accordance with his values and that my vote was not wasted.
I never voted for Bill Clinton because he came across as a poll-watching sociopath who would do whatever he thought would build him a better "legacy". The fact that in retrospect I liked Bill Clinton's positions on prosecuting corrupt businessmen and balancing the budget would not have changed my vote, even if I'd known in advance that he'd pull them off.
I have no reason to believe that Bill's wife is any different from him in the integrity department, and until that changes I doubt that I'll be voting for her, either.
Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms...
WMF is a vector graphics format (windows meta format), you meant WMV or ASF or ASX.
It's one thing to advocate privacy from illegal use of records, searchs and seizures. I question her motives. Anyone remember Hillary illegally trying to hide materials from Whitewater (Oh those documents! I never saw them on my coffee table.) that were sought by very legal means, e.g subpoenas. Totally agree that the pedulum has swung way to far under Bush. But given everything Hillary has tried to hide in the past, suspect this is an attempt to shake off a checkered past.
Hillary's Rose Hill law firm was involved in relations between the NSA and the ill-fated Clipper Chip that her husband was pushing.
Lessee...
She stood by while her husband took FBI tapes and files of members of congress and other prominent members of society (mostly Republican) so they could literally hold everyone by their nuts when the going got tough. And my guess is that the going is going to get tough... oh wait, many of those same members of congress are still in, aren't they? (Well, outside of the revolt by voters that cleaned a few out this last election.)
She helped squash travelgate investigations, and Vince Foster's body turns up with inconclusive evidence regarding whether it was a suicide when the gentleman didn't have a suicide weapon on him... oops wait, that showed up later. But his notes were missing from his office. And then they showed up on her desk? Murdered? You decide.
Then there's the medical records of americans she tried to force open.
And wasn't the Clipper chip pushed during her husband's administration? You know, the one with the key escrow system that allowed the government to use a back-door key (but only under proper subpoena and cooperative efforts with law enforcement efforts...uh, right).
I believe the only privacy she's be interested in preserving is her own.
Yes, it means a lot for my vote, but not from HER mouth!
What we need are laws to protect our privacy, not a president that says privacy is a nice thing. And who makes the laws? Congress. So if you really want to see her do something about this, you should be more encouraged to keep her in her current job. Unless she happens to pass a bunch of laws and then you'll want someone to enforce them. Given the track record of congress, I doubt anything will improve. Given the track record of Hillary, I suspect she'll say whatever it takes to get elected.
She's a politician, regardless of what she says, what her gender is, or who she's married to. And as the old joke goes, how do you know when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.
Hillary Clinton will not have my vote for a number of reasons.
On the idealistic side, she has been anything but consistent in supporting the vision of freedom and fairness that this country supposedly stands for. She voted FOR the PATRIOT Act, she voted FOR the illegal war in Iraq (that drew resources away from Afghanistan and the capture of Bin Laden and instead created the quagmire that has propelled Al Qaeda to the top of the credibility scale), she did nothing to prevent the elimination of habeas corpus, and when the state of New York had a major problem with police violence she held a media conference to highlight the dangers of violent video games. Then there is the fact that she isn't actually a New Yorker, much as Bush Jr isn't actually a Texan. In general, if Hillary is for something, it means that the right-wing DLC has adopted yet another Republican-lite(tm) position and she is toeing the line.
On a more pragmatic level, Hillary on the 2008 ticket will most assuredly send the Republicans back into power in both the Executive and Congress. Outside the coasts, Hillary is HATED more than any other politician, even more than Bush. Yes, the hatred is irrational, but it is there and just waiting to be unleashed by the Rove machine. Why do you think the Republicans dropped her name a year ago as a "formidable opponent"? Why does she have the largest war chest of the Democratic candidates so far (hint: the Leiberman campaign this year was funded mostly by the GOP, not his own pseudo-independent party)? People who do not vote would make their way to the polls to prevent Hillary Clinton from being POTUS.
I'm glad privacy matters to someone in DC. I'd love to see a federal statute preventing the government from caring about the gender of sex partners, or from creating an American Stasi. But I'd rather not vote and let the GOP take another four years and hammer the final nail in the Reagan Revolution than promote Hillary Clinton and see both the GOP and DNC move so far to the right that even Bush Jr would look like FDR.
(BTW--To all you conservatives who think true liberals hate America: Liberals don't hate America, the truth is they love America, the people, the country, the diversity and the strength in the heartland. They are just sorely disappointed that the American government has spent the last 200 years wiping the shit off its ass with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights rather than uphold them as the supreme law of the land.)
No more Bushes.
No more Clintons, Rodham-Clintons, or whatever.
Are we so totally brainwashed as to let two families pass control of the White House back and forth like a dirtweed joint without any thought as to the consequences of this? Bush the First & Clinton's feel-good Katrina relief circle-jerk didn't set off any warning buzzers? Fuck that shit, I'd even support amending the constitution to tighten the restrictions on becoming president so that there's a mandatory gap of at least one generation. You're president, then your kids can't be president. I don't want President Chelsea Clinton, I don't want any of the fucked-up Lil' Bush Kids becoming President, I don't want AMERICAN ROYAL FAMILIES, because it sort of defeats the whole purpose... but that's where we're headed, at a sprint.
And yes, I'd include the Kennedys too. The only Kennedy I'd tolerate in the White House is Jello Biafra.
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
This is not news.
this is the candidates attempt to pander to the tech crowd. However we're supposed to be smart enough to see past her charade.
Hillary follows the money. She is bought and paid for already.
it's better to vote for a candidate that has a level head on HIS shoulders.
Don't throw away your vote.
we have a two party system. Vote for the guy that could actually win.
They're using their grammar skills there.
It's a more general question because I'm not from the US. A couple of years ago H. Clinton was supposed to be that extremely polarizing figure, the one conservatives love to hate, the one which would be the best gift to the GOP if she ran because she would drive tired Republicans to the ballots. Has the situation changed? Was that an exaggeration in the first place?
Are you shitting me?
/.'ers can't honestly grok this being single geeks and all, but trust me, you DO NOT WANT a female president, particularly THIS ONE, and let's just ignore Hillary's evil-ness for just a minute...
I know a lot of y'all
I'm a 48 year old guy, married twice, lost the first one to cancer, and my darling wife, woman odf my dreams, who is truly awesome and long-suffering (has to be to deal with a geek-ish husband...) has now entered peri-menopause. OH MY FUCKING GAWD! HELP ME PLEASE HIDE THE GUNS GET ME STRONGER MEDS AND WHERE THE FUCK IS MY FAVORITE SINGLE MALT?
You fuckin young-ins just can't even imagine the fire y'all are playin with....
I could be wrong, I'm not that familiar with American laws, but I didn't think Americans were entitled to privacy, really.
I'm thrilled to see a senator seeming to hint at maybe moving in the direction of perhaps legislating something vague that might be seen as protecting personal privacy without offending all the entrenched institutions devoted to the opposite (FBI/CIA/NSA/DIA, probably most corporations, financial institutions, the neo-cons, the latter-day Republicans, etc.)...
For instance, Canada has a privacy commissioner, federal laws (PIPEDA, Privacy Act) and a range of provincial legislation which strictly regulates the use of personal information in the hands of both government and private enterprise. PIPEDA is especially of interest to slashdotters since it regulates personal information in electronic form.
Hard to imagine that sort of thing in the US, though I hope someone will correct me.
Their is no way that there will be zero US troops in Iraq in 2008 or in 2018.
The United States Feral Government is likely to go bankrupt between now and 2018. While there might still be troops in Iraq after teh empire collapses, they'd be the ones who were 'left behind'.
Such is the hazard of having the country that graciously took over consumer manufacturing (china) in charge of financing your imperial war machine. (The movement of American manufacturing to China was necessary to keep price inflation down. 'We the People' would've been real pissed years ago if Georgie's war had immediately sent the economy into a tailspin...) Oh well, cest la vie.
If you care about privacy, your Constitutional rights, getting out of Iraq, and fiscal responsibility you have only one choice: Ron Paul
As for Hillary, she'll take a different position next week, depending upon which way the wind is blowing.
So she supports privacy when it suits her agenda, just like everyone else in DC.
Didn't they shorten the name to "America"?
I think it's just "'Merica. Brought to you by Carl's Jr."
Push Button, Receive Bacon
If she is TRULY in favor of greater intellectual freedom what does she believe about patents, DRM, copyrights and so on eroding ability to use cultural knowledge? I see few in politics who seem to as Jefferson put it, "swear eternal enmity against all tyranny over the mind of man" (roughly). Talk is cheap, votes somewhat less so. Ditto introduced laws.
If I thought she favored these things and was sincere about it yes it would sway my
vote and advocacy. She did not make many such noises while her husband was in the White House though. I should like some explanation of her sudden enlightenment...
Well, that's a relief.
If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters. ~Alan Simpson
Sorry, I should have clarified my point. I do not believe government should be in the business of enforcing *religious* morality, which is exactly what these gay marriage bans amount to.
I'm not a Hillary supporter but this kind of stupid talk hurts is harmful to political discourse and its a shame it was promoted by the moderators.
Her position on the war is not relevant to whether she keeps promises. Changing position on a total disaster (Iraq) is however a sign of either intelligence OR proper representation of her state. You'd have to look at her promises and voting record to determine how trust worthy she is. Not the commentary that passes as news today.
ANYBODY who can make privacy a bigger issue should be encouraged! At least then privacy becomes 1 of only a few issues that will be discussed next election. At this point just sending positive messages to Hillary and media about her on this issue will help, even if you don't support her. They use the public, why can't slashdot manipulate them?
FYI:
Authorization for Iraq included 'small print' that you should read since the media did not. Also remember the USA has not had a WAR since WW2. They only funded it; never declared war.
This reeks of pandering to the audience. She's already shown that she is interested in taking the peoples' ability to make decisions for themselves away from them. I mean, look at the whole game thing with Jack-o and crew. If she doesn't think we should be allowed to play the games we want, well, I sincerely doubt she honestly believes that we should be allowed to manage our private details without supervision either.
Not to mention her stance on firearms...
Hillary is about as likely to get my vote as Bush was in the last election, which is to say not at all. We really need a 'toss these jokers and run up new candidates' box on ballots. I'm tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils/idiots.
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
Hey mods, consider the above remark; Bush *has* made plenty of pseudo law with his signing statements. That post was pretty damned factual, and the flamebait mod is both unfair and innapropriate.
Someone should fix the mod - this is one of slashdot's biggest problems, that people use mods to express counter opinions -- by suppressing the other opinion -- rather than actually looking for flamebait. It's why I have to browse at -1; because there are no limits on abusive moderation and perfectly good posts are likely to be buried by idiots like the ass-clown who modded that post flamebait.
And of course, feel free to off-topic me. :/
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm sorry, but can a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act twice really claim, in honesty, to 'support privacy'? That sounds somewhat contradictive.
And that doesn't even go into her influence in the White House when Bill Clinton was President. That's not to say anything specific, as I don't recall any specifics, but I do recall something about spying.
As far as the argument of 'privacy' itself: it's a bit of a misnomer, and it overlooks a lot of things which I'm certain Hillary Clinton would attempt to do. Do I have the 'privacy' to do in my own home, and on my own property - provided I don't harm anyone - anything I want? Will I be scrutinized for such acts? How about shooting guns - can I do that on my own property, provided it's not in town (ie noise/safety issues)? Even if they're so-called evil black 'assault weapons'? I seriously doubt she thinks that's 'allowable'. Bill didn't.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The article discusses several other Democrat candidates as at least somewhat pro-privacy.
Is it only Democrats who care about this? It seems like an issue (like pornography) which should cut across the traditional Dem/Rep. lines. (I can, however, see that ideologically we might expect Democrats to be comparatively more interested in imposing privacy regulations on industry, and Republicans comparatively more interested in imposing restrictions on government.)
If there are no pro-privacy Republicans (PPRs), has it always been this way? Perhaps since 2000 the PPRs are just afraid to speak out, as to do so would implicitly criticise Bush.
(I am not an American, so I don't follow US domestic politics so closely.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Her husband Bill used the FBI to spy on his enemies.
Hillary needs to take account for that transgression.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
John Ashcroft used to be quite the defender of privacy as well. In Congress, he was one of the most outspoken critics of Clinton/Gore's Clipper Chip initiative on the grounds that it would give government way too much power to peer into the private lives of everyone. That was just lip service to oppose Clinton though, as he proved when he became AG under Bush.
I suspect this is the same thing, Hillery is just using this issue as a way to oppose Bush. I'm sure she doesn't REALLY believe it. Why would someone trying to get into power actively curtail that power?
Sorry but it is hard to follow politics and not be this cynical all the time.
Finkployd
"more efficent single system health care"
Heh. Do you know nothing of government? Efficent???
Government should pay only for care that must be mandated. That is, the treatment of people who are unable to discuss pricing and alternatives. (those who are spurting blood, leaking brain matter, etc.) For all the rest, we need to require that full pricing information be made available in advance of treatment. Without price competition, there can be no hope.
We also need to fully eliminate doctor liability and the practice of doctors buying insurance. Evil doctors go to prison. Incompetant doctors lose the right to practice medicine. For injury compensation, buy your own accident insurance if you want it.
Or both?
Bueller?....... Anybody?
America is the two continents. Not any one country. There aren't many people afraid of dying in terrorist attacks in Cuba. In light of this slander, I will now refer to Germany as "europe". Casue, lets face it they're the only ones who will matter in the 21st century.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
A man needs choices. The opportunity to take a letter of Marquee and do some plundering of foreign shipping is just what we need to get some gumption back into the young men. Wouldn't be no metrosexual flouncery goin' on if the kids learned to wear a pouffy white shirt and swing a cutlass.
Vote Captain SkullQuaff in '08!
Seems like tagging needs a better explanation somewhere. Either that, or people too stupid to grasp the concept should no longer be offered the chance to tag.
Though slightly inaccurate in modern times, "man and woman" roughly means "people who will make kids".
The benefits are for kids, not the adults.
Every homosexual has benefited from this. Despite having benefited as children, they selfishly wish to deny helping out future generations. These future generations even include homosexuals.
Yes, the married-no-kids people are getting a bit of a free ride. Oh well. Tax laws and other laws will never be perfectly accurate and fair. Live with it.
You lose out a bit now, as did other unmarried people when YOU were a kid. We can't go back in time to tax your parents more, causing you to have grown up in poverty. Too bad, because you deserve it.
Want to support LGBT people? Start by realizing that some of them are kids growing up in struggling families. Nearly none have non-heterosexual parents.
It will be interesting to see how she protects our privacy while federalizing health care.
-Peter
to save us from all the worlds evils.
Writing to you from within the nurturing and protective confines of my village which knows nothing at all about me and doesn't care to.
> Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
Consider me swayed. She's got my vote.
And I was a republican before the AntiPresident got into office.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Every citizen should hate professional politicians. If for no other reason than their experience as lawyers.
:-)
It would be a refreshing change of pace to see the vote for the highest office in the land sacked and one person per state randomly selected to be run in a lottery where they would just recieve a notice in the mail that they've been elected as President of the United States,or the Vice-President of the United States.
"For the office of President of the United States the Winning number is 893123! If you have this number please report in person to your nearest Post Office, or call the number on the screen and enter the privacy key on your ticket, followed by your SSN..."
That would rock! I wonder if anyone's written a book on this yet?
If not, then this is a great opportunity. All an author(s) would have to do is just come up with 48 potential candidate names (keep it in the CONUS) and elaborate on what happens to the two lucky winners.
Instead of one single writer stepping up to write the whole thing one person from each state could write a chapter based on someone they admired--even if it's a carricature of themselves. And then we could have one controlling author/editor who would serve as the glue. It could be an open-source book with a creative-commons license. There could be a version written every 4 years. It would serve as a memetic quilt of ideas and interests.
Imagine who they'd pardon, what they'd say to the normally elected jackals, how they'd be recieved based on race, religion (or lack thereof), marital status, sexual orientation...damn.
Sounds like the next great American novel, it could be on helluva wiki and a powerful addition to any writing portfolio.
If I wasn't already up to my ears in a long-running effort I'd set it up.
I wouldn't call it "The Lottery" though, that's already a nice story.
How about "The Vottery"?
No domain squatting please.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Hilary will never get my vote. She shouldn't be in office in the first place. I hope Obama stays in the race. I've always been skeptical of Democrats on this issue, but I have no faith in the Republicans to stick to their supposedly traditional ideals. They're all about wasting your tax money and spying on you nowadays.
(And yeah, I know carpetbaggers were northerners who went south. Same idea applies, though.)
One smart thing to do if you're concerned about your privacy is to go to optoutprescreen.com and opt out of receiving unsolicited credit card offers. A lot of people become victims of identity theft because someone gets ahold of one of these offers, and obtains a credit card in their name. You can also look at your own credit report, for free, three times a year at annualcreditreport.com. If you're super paranoid, you can also freeze your credit files so that no new credit can be issued to you unless you unfreeze your files first; however, it costs money and it's a hassle, so it's really more of a reasonable option for people who have already been victims of identity theft (and IIRC it's free in that situation).
Find free books.
It's not possible for the government to provide you with health care AND protect your privacy at the same time.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
This from the candidate who took on Rockstar over the hot coffee mod? Seems like she's arguing for privacy of personal information, but at the same time argues for stricter controls over what games we play. Does that sound hypocritical to anyone besides me?
(( (CRAYON) )) >
I don't believe that career politicians are capable of successfully working to reduce government interference in our lives. I'd love to see it happen, but I doubt it'll come in my lifetime. We're a nation of consumers, and consumers must be tended like the sheep they are. Furthermore, if she really wants to increase privacy she can start by working to repeal the National Firearms Act of '34 and the related legislation passed '86. When the FedGov abandons its argument that the Commerce Clause is equivalent to carte blanc and permits Americans to exercise their inherent rights without fear of reprisal perhaps we'll have made a move toward a society in which privacy is valued and protected. That's all. I'm off to Walmart to buy some ammunition and enjoy a greeter-provided strip search gratis. Loucks
This would be a followed by comments along the following lines:
Then she'd throw some free condoms and blister-packs of amphetamines into the crowd, slug back some Jack Daniels, and walk off-stage grinning like a crack-addict. Reporters would later note that she was wearing a "Plan C" shirt.
* Hey, I just said exactly those things. Maybe I should run -- I know I'd vote for me. It's a shame Americans are too wimpy to elect a foreigner that hates their country and would sell their childrens' organs to zoos for meat...
Hillary is part of the Democrat's old way -- the social-democracy way. They need to reinvent themselves as a proper neoliberal party, like the other modern centre-left parties that the rest of the western world is enjoying. People have a great deal of lingering suspicion about social-democracy, but neoliberalism does extraordinarily well. Neoliberalism can even be mixed with a touch of social-welfare policy, if that should be what the people want -- but it keeps the focus on economic performance, as well as personal and organizational freedom. And that's what a liberal movement should really be about.
First, let me say I am pleasantly surprised. When I think of slashdot I normally think of a bunch of liberal, pro-evolution, anti-bush closed minded people who happen to also be a good forum for technology and sometimes non technical discussion. The number of "Hillary is a retard" posts has astounded me. Nevertheless, here is a glimpse of Hillary's record in the senate: (WARNING: It's a bit long, but interesting. Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_ id=WNY99268)
Votes for alternatives to abortion, but does not vote against abortion.
Voted against 'cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of any individual in custody or physical control of the U.S. government, regardless of geographical location"
Voted "Prohibits any US court, justice or judge from hearing or considering a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on the behalf of a non-U.S. citizen who is detained at Guantanamo Bay "
Voted "- Prohibits the use of funds to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, to motivate or coerce any individual to practice abortion, or perform involuntary sterilizations"
Voted for Tax cuts
Voted against "a resolution that increases the public debt limit to $8.97 trillion." which the Repub congress passed.
Voted to prohibit taxing of internet access, but to allow taxing of VOIP.
Did not vote on bankruptcy bill in 2005.
Voted YES to "Raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in three incremental stages"
Voted against contitutional amendment to make illegal desecration of the flag.
Voted against congreesional sot of living raise in 2005, as did 95% of the rest of congress.
Voted YES to "To increase the maximum Federal Pell Grant award by $200 to $4,250."
Voted to extend unemployment benefits for 13 additional weeks.
Voted YES "on the confirmation of President Bush's nomination of Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense."
Voted NO "to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court"
Voted NO "to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to be the United States Chief Justice."
Voted ~ 50/50 on all other nominations
Voted for creation of department of Homeland Security - (which, btw, ate the Secret Service and the coast guard at the time of creation; I did not realize this)
Voted NO "To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law." as did 95% of congress.
Voted NO to "A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others."
Voted YES to "pass a bill that authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico and grants the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to take necessary steps to stop unlawful entry of undocumented immigrants into the U.S."
Voted YES to "- Allows immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for the past five years to be eligible for U.S. citizenship as long as they pass a background check, pay all back taxes and fines, maintain a job for six additional years, learn English, and pay a fine (Sec 601[245B])"
Voted against English as a national language.
Voted against making it a criminal offense to harm an unborn fetus in the progress of another crime.
Voted YES to war with Iraq.
Voted YES to Partiot Act, 2001.
Voted YES "Vote to pass a bill that allows for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that uses human embryonic stem cells."
Voted YES to Do Not Call Registry.
Don't get me wrong: I despise libertarians (not just their ideas -- the people as well; I'm bitter like that :) ) and I think they're living in a deranged fantasy world where people get along by magic and things get done because divine intervention coordinates peoples' efforts ... but at least they don't go around trying to justify Fascism. That's a marked improvement over the current political debate in America. One side promoting a vision of a theocratic police state, the other side trying to convince people that they share that vision. What the hell!
As an aside, you do know that Americans already pay, through the government, nearly 70% of what Canadians do, for Health care? And for what? If anything, a universal healthcare system (not necessarily a single-payor system like ours, but SOMETHING) would provide vastly better value for your tax dollars. As it stands, Americans are paying that 70% for basically nothing. It's not hard to see why the universal healthcare movement in the US is gaining momentum -- especially when "conservatives" aren't willing to reclaim that money by cancelling existing national healhcare programs. That said, of course, it's not really the federal government's business... Even in Canada, the provinces are the ones in charge of the healthcare program. The Federal government just mandates that such programs have to be in place, as well as providing a certain amount of the funding.
You'll probably start caring a lot more about public healthcare when there's a major outbreak of TB in your city and your kids get sick ... just because the low income families that live on the other side of town can't afford antibiotics, people with HIV can't get their medications and act as reservoirs for TB to fester and become more virulent, there are no programs to get junkies (another major TB reservoir) off the street, etcetera. Diseases affect everyone. For that matter, worker productivity affects everyone -- healthy people contribute more to a strong economy than low taxes do. There are very good economic reasons to get behind universal healthcare of one kind or another. And until employers start giving full health-benefits to their part-time and contract workers, universal healthcare is the only way that low-income families will ever have access to a reasonable level of medical care.
All that said, you still get a high-five for not getting behind the Blackshirts. Good job. I'd rather vote Libertarian than Republican or Democrat (thankfully, all three of the major Canadian political parties are vastly superior to either of them).
Hell yes.
When are the libertarians going to buck the Republicans for real, and get out on their own? The GOP ARE the Republicans now. The Republicans are irrevocably a big-government, police-state, perpetual-warfare party now. They are the blackshirts. And as long as the libertarians keep lending their delusional support to the GOP, every ideal that libertarians stand for will be trampled and destroyed.
I'm SOOO sick of the Bush years!!! He has basically fucked the US, and given the United States considerable influence everywhere else on the globe, by extension he has fucked plenty of non-US citizens as well. Bush has set the progress of freedom and liberty back decades. I seriously hope that Hillary wins, I think she'd make a wonderful President. Of course, I'm sure the fucking neo-cons would have a cow over the prospect...
Privacy is one of my main concerns. I had none in my youth, and I enjoy it a lot now. I will fight any government trying to strip it from me. With whatever means necessary.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Try not to sound like such a tool... Ron Paul may be great, but he's in the Republican party -- and the Republican party only runs cronyistic fascists nowadays. They wont run him precisely BECAUSE he might actually even pay lip-service to the constitution. The constitution is BAD for politicians, especially presidents. Iraq is FANTASTIC for politicians, especially presidents.
Hillary is a reactionary fear-driven manipulator, but at least she isn't in the grips an organization as horrible as the GOP. The GOP basically guarantee that the Republican, as a party, can neve stand for anything more than fascism, cronyism, the police-state, and the economics of perpetual warfare.
The mistake is in assuming that they are your only two choices. Any vote for the two main parties is a vote that was not only wasted, but a vote that was a detriment to freedom itself.
PLAYOFFS? PLAYOFFS? Who said anything about PLAYOFFS ? Oh, sorry. But seriously, modify the subject lines.
You were able to put that into a Windows MetaFile? Cool. It's good that it's not in a WMV file.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
I like Hillary's talk on this. But talk is cheap. Ron Paul, a Libertarian in Republican disguise, may be running. He would be a candidate whose talk I would believe on privacy, or anything else.
That said, if Hillary MEANS it, her working with a Dem congress could make it happen.
Ah....but who will Moderate the Meta Moderators?
Her association with Bill is very telling of how she is. Let us not also forget that if she is elected, Billy-boy will once again be in the White house, and have 'access' to interns. The Democrats do not need another sex scandal.
I would actually look for more Watergate investigations or probes. The Clinton's have many scandalous things in their history other than sex. Hillary might simply have too much history to be elected. A stealth candidate like Obama might fare better, depending on what skeletons are in his closet.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
I'd also warn everyone that the founder of Hillarycare - the mandatory socialized medicine boondoggle that would have banned private payer insurance - doesn't sound all that right-to-privacy to me (the right to privacy, not enumerated in the Constitution, was based on liberty). And let's remember that it was her hubby who authorized Echelon and searching Aldrich Ames without a warrant.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I'd be happy if she just retired and became a private citizen again.
FYI. She is a divisive candidate and the rightwingers have found their anti-saviour. She'll bring every wingnut out of the woodwork so they can have their lovefest of bashing Hillary.
900 FBI files is just a drop in the bucket compared to breaches of privacy committed by this administration, but I guess that's OK because it's Hillary. Her history as an unethical lawyer will come back to haunt her. And I'm not talking Whitewater. That dog don't hunt anymore. Just watch.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
The opposite is also true, you know - using the mod system to say "I agree" is just as abusive and just as rampant. Your parent post is off-topic in this discussion, it just takes advantage of Slashdot's well known bias against Bush (and currently sits at +5 for it).
Don't be hypocritical just because you happen to agree with something.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
At least Slashdot is still better than Digg, where "I like/dislike your opinion" is the only type of moderation going on. I lost interest in Digg because of that.
> And just what is it that makes an invasion "legitimate"?
That country invading an ally of yours. George H. W. Bush's invasion of Iraq was legitimate.
I'd say across the world there are more people desperately disappointed in the USA than hate the USA. Lots of people really want to believe in the USA and are desperately disappointed when the rhetoric and the actions don't correspond. Help us to believe in you. Don't tell us you stand for liberty and truth and freedom and then carry out actions to the contrary. We want to believe in your rhetoric.
At an earlier point (I think) Ford Prefect makes the pronouncement, "The role of the President is not to wield power, but to divert attention away from it."
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
I'm all for privacy, and that would definitely influence my vote. But Clinton seems to feel very strongly that the first ammendment shouldn't exist, so there's no way in hell she's gettin my vote.
Last I checked the moderation system was meant to promote quality posting and deter bad posting. There's a lot of subjectivity involved in that judgment process; that's why there's also meta-moderation.
Ultimately one should not moderate a comment strictly on the basis of "I agree/disagree with this post." It's more important if the post meets a more general criteria of quality and much less important if it's aligned with my personal beliefs.
Other factors also play into it, like whether a post is on-topic. That said, if we're discussing the discussion that remains more or less pertinent to the topic at hand (ie, debating the merits of a given post and whether we personally feel its moderation is warranted).
Now, the on topic bit of your post is the bias against Bush. I'll go ahead and say it's true. Moreover I'll state that the general community (and world community for that matter) are not only biased against Bush, but Hitler too. They're biased against murder and the erosion of liberty and exploitation of children. Simply holding a bias does not indicate any sort of error in judgment or maligned personality. Just the opposite: society takes great pride in denouncing those who support/ed Hitler and with good reason.
Mr. Bush's record is not Hitler's, but it certainly does not stand in line with any solidly professed philosophical, political, or economic theory. It flies in the face of every great epistemological tradition and has quite a few glaring errors that should be the shame of every American who voted for him. And his legacy continues.
But I still agree with you: moderate on the basis of the quality of the argument/post and not because of the position it holds.
Just so when all my frothing Hillary-hating acquiantences find out, I can enjoy watching their freak-out.
A woman president, and a Clinton? Things are looking up!
Blar.
An example of this is your social security number without which applying to school, getting health insurance, opening a bank account, getting medical care...etc... is very difficult.
Not supplying your SSN on a US passport application gets you a $500 fine. Is getting a passport a matter of social security?
It is the only both urgent and long-lasting thing they are likely to do.
Better yet, send your children to private schools; provide a higher-quality education for them, and leach less off of public resources.
Yeah, 'cause the public gets absolutely nothing from an educated electorate and workforce.
Just nothing. Waste of taxpayers dollars.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I have no idea how sarcastic you're being, but judging from other comments you've made, you're not from the US, so I suppose it's not impossible that you're being serious.
In that case, I'll point out that the veto is defined by our constitution, so whether or not it's a breech of the separation of powers, it's definitely an intended one. In addition to the regular veto (where the president returns the bill unsigned to Congress within 10 days), there's also the pocket veto, which is far trickier. The last time a pocket veto was used was by Bill Clinton in 2000 (3 times!). Bush Sr. and Reagan also used pocket vetoes.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I defiantly lean towards libertarian. And I can say neither me nor any libertarian I know thinks highly about Hillary. Hearts a Twitter? Gimmie a freaken break..
This page has a table that shows the number of vetoes each president has made (including a surprisingly high number of pocket vetoes). You'll notice that those numbers are quite high amongst some of our more respected presidents of late (Reagan: 78, Eisenhower: 181, Truman: 250, FDR: 635). Of course you said, "presidents aren't likely to use it when it needs to be used", so perhaps the emphasis is on "when it needs to be used". Do you have any examples in mind? (I'm not disputing your point, I just can't say I've paid that much attention to it.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
No. Not when she's down with torturing the people who deserve it. That's my line in the sand against barbarians.
Besides this was just one conference. Being Hillary, she'll sit down for chicken with a law enforcement organization and promise streamlined data consolidation. She's Hillary. What are the odds? The only political animal who flip-flops for an audience more than her is McCain.
this is the woman who was the architect a proposed healthcare plan that would make it ILLEGAL to see a private doctor of your OWN choosing. I can't take seriously any current stand regarding the protection of any U.S citizens' right to anything.
She's not interested in your rights, she interested in empowering the government to dupe you into giving away all individual decision-making to it. Her idea of an ideal society can bee summed up here:
"Give me your soul and I will take care of you."
How many times will this model have to fail before people finally get it. When will people realized that the government cannot even take care of itself, let alone you. Governments exist to govern, not to be your nanny.
I don't want anyone taking care of me.
I don't want Social Security.
I don't want Medicare. It's a crime that Medicare is forced upon you when you turn 65. You cannot even opt out of it without losing coverage from your private health insurance.
I don't want to pay income taxes that nearly 50% of the population DOES NOT pay. At the very least, I should be paying the same percentage of my income now as I did when I was making 20k a year. I want me and my money to be left alone to prosper in the free-will, free-market society that the founders of this country intended to created.
I don't want to be forced to send my daughter to a government school based on my zip-code. I should be able to opt-out, take my property taxes, and put that towards sending my daughter to ANY school I choose based on whatever criteria I want. My daughter has Down Syndrome, and I cannot divert my taxes to pay for the private schooling she is going to require. Government school will want stick her in a room with kids having various disabilities and give them crayons to eat.
If I wanted to live in a socialized country, there are plenty of other countries in the world that would be more than happy to take my paycheck. I want to take care of myself and my family how I see fit. Not allowing me to do that is a violation of my civil and human rights.
This is why I will never vote for a Democrat at any level. If Republicans want to spy on me, let them. I have nothing to hide. Just let me live my life. Freedom is more important to me than privacy.
Republicans support the freedom that Democrats fear. I only wish Republicans would quit worrying about who marries whom and who kills their baby. If you want to kill your baby, fine. That's one less of your loser line to infect the world. If you want a gay marriage, great. That's one less child being born into this screwed up world. Stop worrying about what other people do with their lives...it doesn't have anything to do with you.
We need to libertarian wing of the right to take control of the party. The Losertarians need to get off their collective pompous horse-asses, dump their loser third-party and start making change in the mainstream party. There has been too much focus on these evangelical nutjobs. We need to lock them in the closet. They are morons that will vote Republican anyway. We all need to stop listening to all the political posturing and start using some common sense.
That's about all I have to say.
First of all, the post I replied to was a counter point to something I posted. Second, the goal of moderation is to raise posts up that are (a) on-topic, (b) contain remarks, information, or pointers to same, which are of high quality (as opposed to posts which say, "yeah, me too" or "GNAA.... blah blah)
Moderating well requires that you stand back from your position, presuming you have one, and reward both sides of the discussion. No more than that. When you do more, you've become partisan, and as slashdot's defaults, used by many people, will promptly hide posts that drop below the user's reading threshold, this is tantamount to suppressing opinion - which IMHO ought to disqualify a moderator forever, frankly.
You can read more about my thoughts on slashdot's problems with moderation here if you're curious.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...then the US people would rather have a man who lied to us about potential for Iraq to harm the USA, and then lied to us about having a plan to deal with the known-issue of sectarian strife... ...than a man who cheated on his wife.
If this is true, then I am disgusted by what the USA has become.
Blar.
Given the recent history of the Republican Party - I, personally, am not likely to vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton in the next Presidential election, should she turn out to be the "anointed one" of the Democratic party.
However, I would do so with grave reservations:
She has a history of waffling, and parsing on the Iraq war. She has only begun to speak out against it since Bush's popularity began to slide. I really do not trust her on this issue. If she really meant what she now says, she would have acted, and shown some spine, some interest in anything other than self preservation. I did not like that quality in her husband, nor did I like it in John Kerry, nor did I like it in our current miserable failure of a President (examples dating all the way back to his governorship in Texas).
Another issue I have with her - she has far more money than any other candidate. I hear people; voters, not Republican Shills, say that they do not favor her - yet, suddenly the press is all abuzz with glorification of teh Hillary. (including this Wired article, and the collateral damage to this web site - amounting to a slashvertisement). It is the influence of money politics and lobbyists that drove the Republicans to where they are today. Doesn't America deserve a change? How many more election cycles of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" can this country stand, before we go the way of the Romans?
Finally; The Privacy Candidate? Bullshit. Watch her very carefully. She will rail against Bush's surveillance-state. But I guaran-fucking-tee you she will not lay a finger on the entertainment industry's beloved DMCA.
Clinton is the Corporatist Candidate.
I don't think there's a damn thing anyone can do to stop her. Given her incredible success over the past three weeks, it's just unbelievable how she shot up in the polls. She will very likely win the D nomination, and from there, I don't see any Republican candidates in the clip that could touch her. And honestly, I'd rather see her win than most of these others. But America deserves better than yet another high priest of the Cult of the Invisible Hand.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
... of course, we all know she'll drop this promise and forget it ever left her lips the moment she gains office, just like any other politician. But I suppose it's worth a try.
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
Personal privacy is one of my biggest issues. It would be enough to decide my vote. However, I don't trust Hillary to be telling the truth about this. If Obama were to tell me that every individual has an absolute right to privacy, I'd believe him and believe that he'd back it up. But from Hillary, or Kerry, or Edwards, or McCain, or Guiliani, nope, not buying it.
It's a hot-button issue for me, but so is the trustworthiness of the actual politician.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
Man, could you imagine if we got a president who refused to sign any bills that contained riders (good or not) that had little or nothing to do with said bill? That'd be a sight! He/she could just say, "I'm not signing any bills that contain unrelated riders," and then keep that promise. Sure, it'd result in government getting "shut down" for a while (not entirely a bad thing in and of itself), but it's hard to imagine that the president would be the one getting the backlash from that. Far too many US citizens have no idea how many stupid riders are added to our bills.
Other than the riders, most of what you cite are examples where the president is deliberately complicit. My question (which you did partially answer with the riders) is centered more around a case where the president chose not to veto a bill that he disagreed with. The initial premise, afterall, was that the president had little to do with what bills get passed. Surely this is true if the president actually agrees with Congress (e.g., PATRIOT ACT), but if the president disagrees, the veto can be used either directly or as a bargaining tool.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Hillary's run for president is a disaster for the Democratic Party (secret code name: the jellyfish-have-more-spine-than-us party) and a boon for the Republicans (secret code name: party-catering-to-self-hating-homosexuals).
A Dean/Obama ticket goes straight to the White House, with lots of "Dewey Defeats Truman" headlines and speechless pundits. Hillary sabotages that end-run quite effectively by splitting the party. Hillary's strongest contribution would be to keep Kerry and Gore locked up in a closet somewhere so they can't endorse anyone.
All that being said, I'd vote for Hillary, because in the extremely unlikely circumstance that she actually won, I'd get to see conservative talking heads literally explode on national television.
Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly, and... what? She what? Arwk, BLAM! (crowd goes wild).
Now that the Democrats control the House and Senate over here, I suspect we'll be given a lesson in vetoes very shortly. However, given his low approval rating, I look forward to more than one of his vetoes getting overridden.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Bullshit. This is from the girl that wants retailers to know your identity every time you buy a violent videogame.
So she supports privacy when it suits her agenda, just like everyone else in DC.
Oh, c'mon, it doesn't matter what you actually do, it only matters what you say. Actually, it doesn't matter what you say, only what's in your heart. Or what journalists say is probably in your heart.
You're just a big meanie bringing up facts. Pfffttpppt.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yes the right to privacy is very important but PLEASE consider the canidates RECORD on privacy not their "promises" during a campaign. This goes for ANY canidate but especialy Hillary , remember she sent private eyes out to dig up dirt on Billy"s Bimbos so that they could trash them.And just to prove I'm not down on the Dem's only, ask the Rep canidates about their stand on the Patriot act and take that into account when you go to the booth.
Okay, I read most of the posts for this topic so far. As a tired politico myself, I have to tell you something significant and important:
Gun CONTROL is NOT POSSIBLE.
I'm a liberal leaning Democrat, grew up in a southern state, and own 5 handguns. I also own a really neat carbine called the CX4 Storm, made by Beretta.
My father, a strongly conservative Republican who thinks even Bush the Lesser is a little liberal, owns more than 30 total guns. My grandfather has somewhere in the range of 400 guns (though not all of them can be fired).
We're pretty typical American citizens. I have NO idea how many total guns are out there in the hands of the general population. I suspect that professional politicians do. That is why they can take a stance that says "I'm for gun control," and yet have no real way to enforce it.
Some real right leaners think that the laws forbidding you to carry a concealed handgun into a courtroom/airport/public school/etc. amount to Gun Control. Strictly speaking, it is. But, ask yourself reasonably, why do you need to go packing in an airport? Do you really hate your student's teacher THAT much for forcing you into a parent-teacher conference? And let's just face it, a gun in a courtroom that's not in a plastic evidence bag is just looking for trouble.
What, pray tell, can a President like Hillary (presume she gets elected) do to curtail our Second Amendment rights? No flames, please. I'd really like to hear.
Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
> Why I'm voting against Hillary: she is Anti-Gun, pure & simple. without a strong 2nd Amendment, the other "rights" are just words on paper that can be ignored as the powers-that-be wish.
And just how is that different from right now? Well, except that all those guns don't seem to be helping anyone even in the slightest. Moreover, just who do you plan to shoot, anyhow? Unless there's an organized military force at your doorstep, exactly what CAN you do that wouldn't involve murdering innocent people?
Perchance you should think this through a bit more, outside of fantasy scenarios where you're part of a rebel force fighting against some unspecified corrupt military made up of people you've never met.
That aside, I don't exactly trust Hillary. Talk is cheap; sponsor or introduce some good bills to prove it.
I have the right to complain about anything I want. It's only the "drink-the-cool-aid" pro-government types who suggest that I shouldn't have some particular right. And that's the problem many of us have with our system. We no longer have the option to be left alone. A politician's power derives from their ability to pass new laws. So both sides are always in a scramble to do just that. I don't care about comparing their "programs" because I don't want any new programs in effect. I don't care about what politicians have to say cause they're all liars. People like you say we are a democracy, and that has indeed become self-fulfilling, but I just want the republic back because I think most of the important issues should be left to the people and not the political process that you care so much about.
Your parent post is off-topic in this discussion
What the hell are you talking about? The GGP said "Presidents don't pass laws, therefore they aren't that important". The GP provided a counterpoint. How on earth is that off-topic?
I don't plan on voting for Clinton in the next election. When she announced her plans, I just laughed loudly, as I sometimes do. Her changing her mind to the complete opposite of what she once thoguht should sway some voters, everyone must remember that Bush did the same thing. When he was still Governor Bush, he stated he would never bring war upon undeserving nations, and all that mumbo-jumbo. Once he became President Bush, he decided to change his mind. It's all a bunch of lies. You'll say one thing, and mean another. Clinton is not right for the U.S. or the world.
I am befuddled that the American People would not vote for Hillary because her husband cheated on her in the White House and he might get to go back to the white house. I'm assuming you mean Republican voters, right? The same voters who re-elected Bush in 2004 despite his lies to them?
Blar.
Remember the 6 year long witch hunt the GOP Congress launched on the Clintons when Bill was in office, so she might take government snooping in private lives very seriously. There are reasons to dislike Hillary, like her being a lightweight fence sitter, there's also a lot of unfounded wingnut crap going around.
Bush owns the mess in Iraq, regaurdless of it's eventual outcome. Yeah some Democrats voted for the authorization to use force (and were lied to), the decision to invade, the demande to invade, and the piss poor planning all came from the Administration, not Congress, and certainally not the minority party. Leaving this mess for future presidents is the height of irresponsibility. But that's exactly what Bush is doing right now by saying any troop reductions will have to be done by future presidents. Any Democrat would be happy to be president right now, and take the bullshit attack from Fox News about "surrendering the war" in order to save thousands more American lives. Go peddle your 30% bullshit on Powerline or at the Free Republic.
Yes, M. Moderator, the facts are overrated. You bet. You just stick your head right back in the sand where it'll stay nice and warm. Don't worry about the sounds of boot-heels crunching the sand next to your head. They're not coming for you. Yet.
Slashdot moderation: Rated 100% broken by users everywhere.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I thought you could connect the dots that Echelon was alive & well during the Clinton administration, yet Hillary was silent. I guess I gave you too much credit. 60 Minutes even ran a story on Echelon when Bill Clinton was in office, not to mention extensive coverage of the Aldrich Ames investigation. I didn't see Hillary's outrage about personal liberty then. But now that she is playing to the left by attacking GWB, you call her the privacy candidate? Wake up!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The other point to address (not in the parent post but in some of the others at this post level) is this idea that the general population is stupid and that therefore we need someone smarter with real integrity to hold to the Constitution and do right by us even when we are too dumb to know for ourselves. Do you think so little of your friends and neighbors? The earliest example of a democratic government that I have read the history on was Athens. In Athens, public offices were assigned by lot. That's right: a lot was assigned to every citizen and they drew randomly for public offices! What you have to realize is that by investing people with that kind of responsibility, they have the opportunity to rise to that level of expectation. And peer pressure is very powerful, as we all know and have experienced, and works to hold people to those standards.
The more responsibility you are willing to give a person, the more they are able to rise to that responsibility. If a person knows that others are truly relying upon them to do something, the majority of people that I know rise to that. Even if I think Bush's policies are short-sighted and his elocution is abysmal, I do feel that he is doing his absolute best to do right by his nation. I personally do not think the erosion of our civil rights to combat the fear of victimization by terrorist acts is the right approach, but I can see the desire to do right, even if I think it is misguided.
In summary, people are always accountable to their peers. There is no one that is beyond the law of the majority. We are all subject to it. You can say, "Oh, look at Hitler." Yes, look at Hitler. One of the most vilified human beings in history who met a very abrupt end. Saddam hanging from a rope with a U-bend in his neck. Atrocities happen, but in every historical instance, balance is restored, simply because the majority does rule. It takes time, but it is inevitable. And in this day and age with media as ubiquitous as ours, accountability for good or naught is that much more immediate. So if we had a President that always acted in the best interest of the majority, I would be all right with that, because if it took us to a place "we" do not want to be, then we have only ourselves to blame, and only ourselves to expect a solution from.
Maybe if people spent more time owning up to that responsibility instead of trying to pick the "one guy or girl that's going to be emminently responsible for us all" things would be better.