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 Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.'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?

9 of 593 comments (clear)

  1. The right to privacy is underrated by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    1. Re:The right to privacy is underrated by jofny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The right to privacy goes hand in hand with the right to free speech and, as such, is one of the rights that must absolutely be kept healthy to sustain our country. Without it, the rest falls apart. So yes, the right to privacy is one of thekey issues for me when considering candidates.

    2. Re:The right to privacy is underrated by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't vote on what they say, vote on what they have done. I don't know Hillary's record on privacy, but I suspect it is not good. Check her voting record in the Senate. Talk is cheap.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  2. Hillary =! privacy by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ----
  3. No thanks by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.

  4. Not hers by lewp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

    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.
  5. Re:Clinton is a joke and a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Yeah, but where does she... by stubear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...stand on the First Amendment? Remember Hillary was the Senator leading the charge against Take2/Rockstar over Hot Coffee.

  7. Re: they can't make law by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone neglected to include our current president on that memo. He's made plenty of pseudo-law with his ongoing abuse of signing statements.