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 Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.'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.
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 ----
I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.
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.
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.
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.
...stand on the First Amendment? Remember Hillary was the Senator leading the charge against Take2/Rockstar over Hot Coffee.
Someone neglected to include our current president on that memo. He's made plenty of pseudo-law with his ongoing abuse of signing statements.
I am not REQUIRED to have a driver's license and I am free to travel state-to-state without one. A driver's license is a form of identification, true, but that's more a secondary function. If law enforcement can demand/require the display of the National ID at any time, that IS a violation of privacy.
Actually, in most places, you are REQUIRED to have some form of valid ID. All a national ID has to do is identify you. The drivers license shouldn't be a primary identification, it should be a license to operate a motor vehicle. A social security number shouldn't be a central identification tool, it should be a Social Security Administration record. I'd rather have some national ID number associated with me universally than either my drivers license (which can impact my insurance premium and my DMV record if abused) or my SSN (which is tied to my receipt of money). A national ID, like a passport, has no direct ties to my financial information, health information, or driving record. The NID can cross-reference all of the other numbers (that is, I should be able to use an NID to verify that a savings account is mine, but should not be able to access said account solely with that number). If used effectively, some of the national ID proposals would actually protect personal privacy more than the current system.
As far as being forced to provide it, you're again falling into the trap of MISUSE. The existence of the ID itself has nothing to do with what sort of use is acceptable. Law enforcement currently forces you to provide a drivers license or state ID--a national ID doesn't make their job any easier, and refusal to provide one isn't any better or worse than it is now.
their stand on a whole host of other things that Congress gets to determine doesn't matter.
I think you underestimate the power of the executive. While it's technically true that Congress passes legislation, it's also true that the President holds nearly equal sway. While he can't introduce legislation himself, he need only present it to a willing accomplice for it to make its way to the floor. Deals are often made between the executive and legislative branches, where one side will agree to pass Bill A in exchange for the passage/inclusion of Bill/Rider B. Of course, when the same party controls both houses, as we saw for the past 6 years, the executive can essentially dictate the agenda, and any detractors risk party ostracism, which could ultimately mean career suicide. (Fortunately, following the party line turned out to be career suicide for many candidates -- although that sets the stage for the pendulum to swing back the other way, perhaps sooner than the Democrats would prefer). The only time the President's agenda doesn't much matter is when the Congress overwhelmingly disagrees, and in more cases than not, that merely results in deadlock.
Aside from explicit powers, the President controls the bully pulpit, which means he can and does set the topic of public discussion. Once voters are talking about an issue, Congress will often have to act or risk losing face.
Granted, your point was that other issues are more pressing to you, and more relevant to the envisioned role of the office, but the power of the President to set the legislative agenda is not insignificant.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere