Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Privacy Candidate

Posted by kdawson on from the right-from-the-left dept.

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 Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.'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

4 of 593 comments (clear)

  1. Meaning what one says... by Eldragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  2. her idea of privacy by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:No thanks by noz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.
    Like all things in life, voting is about balance. Sure, if one particular policy offends you so much, you will vote for the opponent, but enough of the opponent's policies may offend you too. You must also consider that video games may be trivial in comparison to other policies, such as liberties. It is your vote.

    In Australia we have a preferential voting system which I believe empowers voters to rank candidates - hopefully by policy (possibly in descending order of evil *grin*) - but we do have compulsory voting: the merits of which are debatable.

    In fact, they often reduce our federal elections to a one-policy debate: economics. Compulsory voting with the threat of higher interest rates under the potential leadership of the opposition arguably scares the politically unmotivated or uneducated to vote with this threat in mind.

    As Bill Hicks once said, "There are more important things to vote with than your wallet."
  4. Re:No thanks by evanbd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Her stance on video games isn't just about video games. It shows she believes that I need protecting from myself, and that I am incapable of protecting my children from video games. It shows that she places these values above free speech. It shows that she is quick to jump on the "Think of the children!" bandwagon, regardless of any actual evidence or logic.

    Her belief that she knows better than I do what's good for me is the big reason I don't want to vote for her (though I might, depending who the opponent is -- she'd be better than Bush, of that I'm certain). Her stance on video games is just one example of this.