US Official Urges Americans To Reconsider Privacy

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr. Kurt Opsahl of the EFF said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service. "There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties. We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy." Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, requiring a court order for surveillance on U.S. soil. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.

Comments

Finding yourself in Google

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google can not find anything about me, do I really exist? Or perhaps this guy exaggerates a little bit?

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[LiquidCoooled]

If google cannot find anything about you then you have misspelt your name.
If nothing comes up then you were switched at birth and can find information by typing in your correct name.

I only found out about this when I discovered my real birth name is inanimate carbon rod.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[fyngyrz]

It has NOTHING to do with Google. If the government wants to change what privacy means to THEM, they need a constitutional amendment. Unless they simply want to continue to trample the document, which I wouldn't doubt for a moment.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4th ammendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [...]". I think the attempt is to narrowly define "secure", here. If someone can unreasonably search all your papers, effects, etc., *but* that does not give you reasonable cause to feel "insecure", is that a 4th ammendment violation? There's rhetorical ground to be muddied, somewhere between "privacy" and "security". Now, I myself consider it inherently unreasonable for a citizen to accept government guarentees of security at face value, but that seem to be the arguement that's being put forward here.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[E 99]

It has NOTHING to do with Google. If the government wants to change what privacy means to THEM, they need a constitutional amendment. Unless they simply want to continue to trample the document, which I wouldn't doubt for a moment.

That would only be the case if the Constitution defined privacy. As it stands, the Constitution doesn't even MENTION privacy.

Whether privacy should be considered an unalienable right is a worthy topic of discussion. However, as far as I can tell the concept of the right to privacy didn't exist prior to the 20th century. Saying that the right should be respected because it is in the Constitution, when it isn't, is a silly argument, and undermines the legitimate arguments for it. (And just because the Supreme Court does something silly doesn't mean it is no longer silly.)

The clear purpose of the 4th Amendment is to protect citizens against physical and disruptive intrusions into their homes and possessions. It does not exist to explicitly safeguard information from the government. It was neither written nor ratified under any semblance of that meaning. To intentionally interpret the Constitution in a way that is alien to both the words themselves, and to the understanding of both the writers and ratifiers, is blatantly anti-democratic.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Torvaun]

Heh. According to the first two pages of my Google search, I am a stunt double, a football player, a reviewer on Amazon, a MySpace bot, and a bigwig at Tower Financial Planning. Looks like I'm about as close to incognito on the web as you're going to find.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

Maybe we can invite a Brit to weigh in on whether or not it's irony, but what fascinates me is that many of the same people who cry the loudest about the Bush Administration's actions are also the ones going on about the need for social welfare programs and universal health care.
Look: either the government pervades your life, or it does not.
The debate is healthy, though. Perhaps it will lead to clearer rules of engagement on security and privacy. If you're tasked with ensuring security, you really want clear ROE, so that the next time Mr. Extremist makes history, you can say: "Well, that sucked, but that was the way the public wanted to manage the probabilities."

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Jello B.]

Nuh-uh. I have an entire disambiguation page on Wikipedia on my name. I'm a trophy, an American political scientist, a Canadian international relations scholar, and the former mayer of Fort Lauderdale.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[JoeCommodore]

Good luck on that mister, there's already 213,000 hits about you on Google!

http://www.google.com/search?q=Anonymous+Coward

The phrase many people have a issue with: government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information., presently it is not properly safeguarded, except for those guarding their data in order to maximize profits on it's resale.

I'll trust the government with my private data when I trust the administrators. Which usually means that they trust us also.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[jamie(really)]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Specifically papers and unreasonable searches means the government does not get to look at my private documents without a warrant. Back when this amendment was written, if the government wanted to snoop on your documents, it would have to look at your papers, and this amendment would force them to get a warrant. Nowadays most of our documents are electronic, and we transmit them about over networks. Clearly, had the authors of the 4th amendment been alive today they would include "snooping on your email" as "unreasonable searches of your papers".

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hello thar, Mr. Robert Cox.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[LiquidCoooled]

The scariest part of all this is that according to google I died in an industrial accident a few years ago.
It was a shock when i discovered this, but thankfully measures have been put in place to ensure it never happens again.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[TheRequiem13]

Government provisions for socialized health care do not inherently sacrifice privacy. What gives you that idea? As long as the hospitals (etc) abide to patient confidentiality, and the government pays for these hospitals (etc) to operate, there's no issue.

This is really far from an "all or nothing" debate. That's what the government wants you to believe: that in order to provide you with services, security and safety, we need to be able to get into every facet of your life. Don't let them convince you that's how it has to be.

There are choices to be made about everything. The government can provide health care without access to specific patient information. They can provide security without reading your email and listening to your phone calls. Do not for a second believe that one comes with the other. We have choices.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[ijakings]

We don't vote for things over here in blighty anymore. What silly tosh.

We have wide huge changes made to the way our country operates without so much as a say from us, with the ability for an unelected EU "President" and a "majority" of EU countries pass laws in our country without so much as a public ratification.

You may think you have things bad but the time will come for Guy Fawkes masks and mass protest at some point.

I still say there should be a union of network managers, if they strike on an issue the country would grind to a halt within about 5 days after some idiot decides to ignore that pretty "DO NOT BLOCK VENTILATION" sign and then wonders why theres a funny smell.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Jello B.]

BLAST! FOILED AGAIN!

*poof*

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[E 99]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Specifically papers and unreasonable searches means the government does not get to look at my private documents without a warrant. Back when this amendment was written, if the government wanted to snoop on your documents, it would have to look at your papers, and this amendment would force them to get a warrant. Nowadays most of our documents are electronic, and we transmit them about over networks. Clearly, had the authors of the 4th amendment been alive today they would include "snooping on your email" as "unreasonable searches of your papers".

That's not what the language means. To be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" means there are limits to the conditions under which the local constable can rifle through your papers and take whatever he's interested in. It does not mean he can't look over your shoulder if you're reading your papers in the local pub, peeking in the window of your home, or consulting a psychic to tell them what is contained in your papers. The amendment does not protect information or prevent spying. It protects people's lives from being unduly interfered with by physical searches or seizures of their property.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hello thar, Mr. Robert Cox.

--------------

Somebody with mod points should mod this poster up to +2 "great way to make a useful point."

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[FreakWent]

"Look: either the government pervades your life, or it does not."

Here in grown-up land we call that a false dichotomy.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[deathy_epl ccs]

Interestingly enough (at least to me), ~30% of the results from Google for my name are actually about me.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[arminw]

......to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.......

I suppose it can be debated whether some ephemeral electronic impulses in some distant computer apply to the above. In the days this was written, any government agent who did want these, had to physically come to the subject persons house or office and take such persons or items with him/her.

It seems that in this day, the only way to keep anything truly secret, is to not tell anyone, anywhere, by any means and make sure it isn't recorded anywhere it is possible for another person to discover said secret(s). Sending a secret out by any electronic device is likely not much different than shouting it from your roof-top.

Maybe Jesus had this in mind what is recorded in Luke 12:3?

"For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, nor anything hidden that shall not be known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light. And that which you have spoken in the ear in secret rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops."

This was written long before mankind had our modern means of eavesdropping.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[arminw]

.....it would have to look at your papers........

They still have to get a warrant to look at you papers if they are in your HOUSE. Even if they want you HD from your computer, they have to get a warrant and then come and take it. As written the getting of a warrant ONLY applies to you house, not the dumpster or garbage can. You home is your castle, still in a sense.

You might as well get used to the fact, that the Internet is a public highway and anything that litters that highway can be picked up by anyone, including government. If you have a deep dark secret, keep it to yourself. As soon as another person knows it, it is no longer a secret. If you want to convey some special private information that is limited to one or a few individuals, encrypt it, before releasing it onto the public Internet.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Kadin2048]

That's fine if it's your opinion, but thankfully it does not seem to have been shared by many of the Supreme Court justices in the last half-century.

Your very literal use of the word "papers" is, IMO, sillier than the expansionist view you seem to abhor. Plus, the Constitution says nothing about said papers being under your direct personal control; you have a right to be secure in the knowledge that the government will not intrude on them, even if they are in, say, a bank's safe deposit box. That's no different from electronic "papers" stored on a remote server.

And while the town constable could perhaps peek over your shoulder if you were reading documents in a pub, he certainly could not conceal himself in your house or other private place (or peep through a window), in order to do so: the key difference between your home and a pub being the implicit assumption of privacy.

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" was meant to be an exclusive list; it reads to me as though it was specifically mean to be broad: that list encompasses practically everything of a possibly private nature that an 18th century man might possess. There is no reason to assume that the intent was limited only to "physical searches or seizures," when that was the only type of search or seizure that existed at the time of writing. The document was as broad as possible at the time it was written; you do a disservice to it with your pedantry.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[MadUndergrad]

NO! Bad! This is not about "feeling" secure, it's about BEING secure. There's a huge difference. If someone can unreasonably search all your papers, effects, etc. then you're not secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, are you? It has nothing to do with how you feel about it. I see people making this fallacy all the time, that it's about feeling secure rather than actually being secure. That's not how it works. There is no rhetorical ground to be muddied.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[jamie(really)]

Er, no, you need to re-read it. It doesn't say The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, while in their houses, it says The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,. That is the person, the house, the paper and the effects are all protected, independently. If you put something in the garbage, you have given it up to be placed in open land. However, if I put it on a remote, password protected server, it is still most definitely protected from unauthorised access and a warrant is required.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smallfries]

Debate is healthy when it's real debate. This has been framed in terms that are so wrong it is shocking. Just a couple of quotes from the article that really stand out:

"Privacy no longer can mean anonymity" - without anonymity there is no such thing as privacy. Traffic analysis is a wonderful tool if we are talking about communications, and if we're datamining for activities then tagging everything with a real id makes it a lot easy. Nothing like removing two freedoms for the price of one.

"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that" - Erm, if you already have somebodies name then anonymity is hard. Surely the real question is whether you can get it in the first place. Surely not a US politician trying to mislead the public over the terms of a debate. I'm shocked...

The reason that I put this response to you, in this thread, rather than someone else later on is this. Why are you trying to equate the debate with a "liberal" (in the US sense) desire for social control? Most of Europe has had extensive social programs in place for decades without feeling the need for this fascist level of control over people's lives. Do you not think it possible that the two subjects are independent?

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

What gives you that idea? As long as the hospitals (etc) abide to patient confidentiality, and the government pays for these hospitals (etc) to operate, there's no issue.

As you say. Allow me to admire your confidence, sir.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

And you wonder (maybe you don't) why the US consistently rebukes efforts to set up new bodies exercising international sovereignty, for example, the UN Law of the Sea Convention.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

If I could excuse myself from this "Social Security" situation, then I might agree with you.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

Why are you trying to equate the debate with a "liberal" (in the US sense) desire for social control?

The reason is that the "liberal" (in the US sense) desires seem to argue for social control in some areas (health) and against it in others (Government-managed spying). The cleaner argument, IMHO, is the more libertarian one: curtail the Federal interest in the individual.

Most of Europe has had extensive social programs in place for decades without feeling the need for this fascist level of control over people's lives. Do you not think it possible that the two subjects are independent?

When my father-in-law retires in a year or two, the German nanny-state precludes him from doing something obvious like opening up a bicycle repair shop or computer maintenance business (two areas where he could do modest business). He is by law capped at an absurdly low level of income, once he goes into retirement.
If that is their law, fine. It just strikes me as bizarre to regulate small business in that manner.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[PopeRatzo]

smitty, I think this is a straw argument, this idea that if the government can provide any services to us it absolutely must invade our privacy. This is one of those loopy Reason Magazine assertions that is devoid of meaning and whose only purpose is to make us thing government is a problem.

If we're going to get anywhere as a country, and as a world, we're going to have to stop swallowing this phony conventional wisdom. I've lived and worked in a few places where the residents enjoy a host of public services, far more than we have here in the US: free medicine, free education through University, government pensions, and guess what? They have far more privacy than we have in this country.

In fact, I've recently come back from a symposium in Finland with a side trip to Norway. It was an eye-opener to talk to people who live in a prosperous place, who are quite pleased with their system of publicly funded health care and education, and still believe they are, in fact, running their government instead of the other way around.

The USA is the wealthiest country in the world, one that prides itself on innovation. Well, if we're so goddamn clever, what say we figure out a way to keep families from losing their homes if one of their kids gets sick, and maybe, on this Veteran's Day weekend, figure out a way to keep so many of our returning veterans of our foreign military adventures from becoming homeless (one in four of US homeless are military veterans). While we're at it, maybe we can figure out a way to have elections with results that bear some resemblance to the votes actually cast. Why are so many countries in much worse shape than the US still able to hold elections in which the citizenry have some trust?

No, Smitty, don't get sucked into that Ronald Reagan BS that government is incapable of doing anything right. Just because Reagan's party has spent decades doing their level best to destroy government so his statement can be true doesn't mean there's anything about government that is inherently ineffective or negative.

The last time I had to renew my drivers' license, the DRV was run a lot better than my cable company.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Dare nMc]

~30% of the results from Google for my name are actually about me.

3 years ago 70% of the stuff on the first search page were me, not a single result is today.

I quit posting with any reference to my real name/email. And thanks to recent use in a movie, my pseudonymn is no-longer unique also.

Although you can't delete your online history, it will get diluted quickly.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[deathy_epl ccs]

Thankfully so... most of the occurrences of my real name are due to various software utilities that I've released over the years. On a positive note, at least things like that don't reveal much in the way of private information.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[E 99]

That's fine if it's your opinion, but thankfully it does not seem to have been shared by many of the Supreme Court justices in the last half-century.

Any rights given to you by the opinions of the justices of the Supreme Court can be taken away from you by the opinions of the justices of the Supreme Court. That is the difference between the rule of men and the rule of law. Why anyone would advocate for the former system is beyond me. The founding fathers were quite clear that they preferred the latter.

Your very literal use of the word "papers" is, IMO, sillier than the expansionist view you seem to abhor. Plus, the Constitution says nothing about said papers being under your direct personal control; you have a right to be secure in the knowledge that the government will not intrude on them, even if they are in, say, a bank's safe deposit box. That's no different from electronic "papers" stored on a remote server.

I didn't claim that "papers" excluded electronic media. The point is that the security discussed in the 4th amendment is security against those papers being disturbed or taken, not security against them being seen, or against the information contained in the papers from being known. So yes, if the government forcibly enters your house, takes your laptop, or interrupts your business, to read your email, that is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. If it is read without disturbing anyone or anything, such action is not at odds with any reasonable interpretation of the 4th amendment.

And while the town constable could perhaps peek over your shoulder if you were reading documents in a pub, he certainly could not conceal himself in your house or other private place (or peep through a window), in order to do so: the key difference between your home and a pub being the implicit assumption of privacy.

The whole idea of "expectation of privacy" is purely an invention of the supreme court from the 1960s. It is in no way implied by the 4th amendment.

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" was meant to be an exclusive list; it reads to me as though it was specifically mean to be broad: that list encompasses practically everything of a possibly private nature that an 18th century man might possess. There is no reason to assume that the intent was limited only to "physical searches or seizures," when that was the only type of search or seizure that existed at the time of writing. The document was as broad as possible at the time it was written; you do a disservice to it with your pedantry.

I agree that the list of objects, "persons, houses, papers, and effects" is intended to be broad. The question is strictly about what kinds of actions are being prohibited, not the kinds of objects upon which the actions are being performed.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

Point taken.
One bit of feedback I'll offer to your Scandinavian anecdote is the same rebuttal I offer my Swedish friend:
Comparing the situation in a country with a relatively homogeneous population the size of New York City to the USA might be unfair.
In other words, one wonders whether any of those countries would fare so well if you jacked their population up an order of magnitude, and gave it the cultural mish-mash that is the USA. Additionally, and this is a serious question about the foot vote: in which direction, North America or Scandinavia, is there greater human migration? For relatively prosperous countries like your Finland and Norway, I would expect the numbers are small and roughly equivalent. For all the purported superiority of these systems, we don't see a stampede towards the old country.

No, Smitty, don't get sucked into that Ronald Reagan BS that government is incapable of doing anything right. Just because Reagan's party has spent decades doing their level best to destroy government so his statement can be true doesn't mean there's anything about government that is inherently ineffective or negative.

Working as I do within the realm of DoD acquisition, let me tell you that, while your statement may have merit north of the Potomac River, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is a full-on zoo.
The USA is rich. We have 50 good-sized states to tinker with the possibilities, and let people choose the place that best scratches their itch. Notwithstanding economies of scale, remind me again why we want a one-size-goobers-all solution? If absolute power corrupts absolutely, why concentrate it?

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[tombeard]

Not much of a point if you have Time Warner like I do.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[BalanceOfJudgement]

That would only be the case if the Constitution defined privacy. As it stands, the Constitution doesn't even MENTION privacy.

Which means, since it is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government to intrude on the right to privacy, that it is a right retained by the people.

Oh, wait, you thought that your statement indicated the opposite, right?

You should remember that the Constitution enumerates the government's powers, not the people's rights. The Constitution does not grant rights - it simply points out a few of them that they specifically wanted to ensure were retained by the people. The rest not mentioned are automatically retained.

The right to privacy is precisely one of these - it was an idea considered so fundamental to society at the time the Constitution was written that it was considered an absurdity to include it in the document.

Turns out they probably should have left it in, huh?

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Maxmin]

PopeRatzo, consider also that business is deeply intertwined with government in the USA. A sizeable chunk the people running policy at the appointed level, in the federal government, are fresh through the revolving door from the business side.

Are they in government to make policy that benefits the people, or the businesses? Look to where they go after stepping through the revolving door the second time to answer that question.

I believe that's what drives government to make statements and decisions that impact citizen privacy. Kerr, however, is a career spook. Spookland's interest in thwarting privacy is ostensibly about [preventing] terrorism, but when you consider the massive agglomerated databases of personal and financial history that government is buying/renting from private business, their objectives are not so clear. Let's see where Kerr ends up when his government tenure is over.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[falconwolf]

When my father-in-law retires in a year or two, the German nanny-state precludes him from doing something obvious like opening up a bicycle repair shop or computer maintenance business (two areas where he could do modest business). He is by law capped at an absurdly low level of income, once he goes into retirement.
If that is their law, fine. It just strikes me as bizarre to regulate small business in that manner.

Yea, several years ago my sister, who's a Certified Public Accountant, CPA, in the US and has her Masters, started an accounting firm with some friends of hers who are also CPAs. At the tyme I got into a discussion with someone in Germany on this and (s)he had said if my sister had tried to start the business in Germany she would have had to get a lawyer to start the business. I don't know if that's true but if so then it only adds to the small business unfriendliness of Germany. Add to that the fact that it's hard to fire an employee for cause there. And in France, there were some riots in France a few years ago because the French government wanted to pass a law to make it easier for an employer to fire someone, but the youth in France was against this. Why would anyone want to try to start a business, or hire more people, if they can't fire those who are hurting the business? A business could go bankrupt having to pay a good employee as well as one who's a financial drain on the business. If a business is already established why would it want to hire more people if it were hard to fire bad ones?

Falcon

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[falconwolf]

One bit of feedback I'll offer to your Scandinavian anecdote is the same rebuttal I offer my Swedish friend:
Comparing the situation in a country with a relatively homogeneous population the size of New York City to the USA might be unfair.
In other words, one wonders whether any of those countries would fare so well if you jacked their population up an order of magnitude, and gave it the cultural mish-mash that is the USA. Additionally, and this is a serious question about the foot vote: in which direction, North America or Scandinavia, is there greater human migration? For relatively prosperous countries like your Finland and Norway, I would expect the numbers are small and roughly equivalent. For all the purported superiority of these systems, we don't see a stampede towards the old country.

You may want to rethink the statement that Sweden has a homogeneous population. As with other European countries Sweden has a sizable immigrant population:

"Sweden struggles to integrate Muslim immigrants". As TFA says "'Immigrants to Sweden have become political refugees. First there were people from South America, then Iran, Afghanistan and now Iraq,' he said." Fact is is many European nations welcomed foreigners, many from Africa and the Middle East, as workers as early as the 1950s. Maybe not all, I don't know, but many Northern European nations have growing African, Middle Eastern, and Muslim populations.

Falcon

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smallfries]

I'm not sure that I see what you mean by "cleaner". Just because government intervention is bad in some areas of life, it doesn't logically follow that it must be bad in all areas of life. As an example, there are quite strict privacy laws in Germany and France that run contrarty to this US approach. Both (the US and European) are intervening in the issue of privacy - but with completely opposite results. Are both "bad" just because they are government interventions?

It strikes me as bizarre that someone is prevented from starting up a small business like that, but I don't see the connection to the debate on privacy. The "fascist" level of control that I alluded to was an observation that fascist regimes start by collating information on the population, then use it to begin repression. America is heading down that slippery slope.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[cayenne8]

"As an example, there are quite strict privacy laws in Germany and France that run contrarty to this US approach. Both (the US and European) are intervening in the issue of privacy - but with completely opposite results. Are both "bad" just because they are government interventions?"

Well, I think what you're talking about, are the EU laws regarding privacy from public companies, etc. We're arguing in the US to try to keep our privacy from the GOVERNMENT itself....which, while it has been slipping away over recent years, is something we still are trying to hold on to. The citizens in the US should have a reasonable expectation of anonymity from the govt.'s eye on most aspects of their life, short of taxes, or criminal activity. Other than those reasons, the Govt. on all levels should F.O. pretty much...any daily activity or communications, etc, should be private from any and all govt. entities, unless there is suspicion of criminal activity, and they get a court order to investigate.

I think that is the difference in perspective in this discussion between European privacy and US privacy. I do, agree...that our privacy from companies over here needs to be strengthened too.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[arminw]

.......However, if I put it on a remote, password protected server.......

Only as long as the password holds. On its way to that server, it is on the open Internet. Unless encrypted, anyone can read it. Paper analogy: You put some papers in the garbage, to be picked up by the garbage truck on its way to the municipal incinerator. Unless you shred the papers first, they can be read by anyone who fishes them out of the truck. They are in no way protected by the constitution from any such fishing. Effects, papers, etc. are protected, while in your possession. Putting anything of yours on the Internet or dumpster, means that you have given up possession and it is up for grabs by anyone who happens along. It would be nice if all people refrained from snooping on each other. Unfortunately, we don't live in a nice world. According to some at least, survival of the fittest is still the rule.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Brad Mace]

You seem to have been misled. While many liberals want the government to make healthcare *available* to all, I'm not aware of any that want it to start making decisions about patient care. It's entirely possible for the government to pay for healthcare, or ensure private groups pay for it, without dictating terms to those who use it.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[HTH NE1]

Maybe Jesus had this in mind what is recorded in Luke 12:3?

"For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, nor anything hidden that shall not be known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light. And that which you have spoken in the ear in secret rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops."

This was written long before mankind had our modern means of eavesdropping. That's Luke 12:2-3. If you add 12:1 you can spin it as a warning against getting drunk on beer (misinterpreting "yeast") lest you reveal too much to your enemies. But this too is against the full context.

A more complete context is Luke 12:1-12, for being open with your faith. And Luke 11:46-53 as a precursor for Christ as a guest for dinner railing against lawyers (and all because someone took offense at him not washing his hands before dinner).

IANA religious scholar. I side with Douglas Adams on the concept.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

While many liberals want the government to make healthcare *available* to all, I'm not aware of any that want it to start making decisions about patient care.

It would be better to let those under European-style regimes weigh in. The assertion here that policies driving availability are somehow decoupled from decisions about patient care seems...optimistic.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

Respectfully request you read what I wrote:

relatively homogeneous population the size of New York City

A glance at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html#People
shows for Sweden:
Population: 9,031,088 (July 2007 est.)
Ethnic groups: indigenous population: Swedes with Finnish and Sami minorities; foreign-born or first-generation immigrants: Finns, Yugoslavs, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Turks

And for these United States:
Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
Ethnic groups: white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)

So, the US has Sweden beat for population by a factor of 30. Sweden is broken down into "Swedes with Finnish and Sami minorities", whereas the US is listed as 81.7% white.
You can as reasonably compare Firefox and Lynx: both are 'web browsers', no?
This is why I take umbrage at these people that want to just slap a Swedish health-care system on the US. They either haven't thought the concept through in detail, or they stand to make large stacks of cash off the ensuing ruckus.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[falconwolf]

So, the US has Sweden beat for population by a factor of 30. Sweden is broken down into "Swedes with Finnish and Sami minorities", whereas the US is listed as 81.7% white.

I noted you gave percentages for the US population but none for Sweden, why? Is it because the population isn't as homogeneous as you say? And while you mention the Finnish and Saami (Inuits in Alaska, Canada, and Iceland and Lapps in Finland and Russia), there is nothing of other Swedish peoplessuch as the ethnic Danes and Germanic tribes.

Falcon

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[richie2000]

The assertion here that policies driving availability are somehow decoupled from decisions about patient care seems...optimistic. But quite possible.

Here in Sweden (the perfectly socialized nanny-state) we have several systems where the .gov pays different kind of co-ops and private firms the same kind of money their own schools and hospitals get, on a per student/course and patient/treatment basis, respectively. They stipulate a set of rules for the operators, like basic curriculums and so on, but otherwise leave them pretty much alone. It seems to work well.

So well in fact, that the debate is not about .gov control over schools and health care, but if it's reasonable for private contractors to reap nice profits when they manage to run better schools cheaper than the government can. Personally, I think that we'd be better served by a debate about why the .gov's schools are so expensive to run and where the money is going (the answer is probably the same for a .gov school as for any large .org - there are too many entrenched middlemen).

Oh, and touching on the work after retirement issue; you're free to keep working as an old age pensioner, but if you make "too much" money in that job, your pension goes down. Seems reasonable to me, I dunno what goes on in Germany.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

No, because I was quoting the CIA World Factbook verbatim.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

Great for Sweden! There is simply no doubt that the real point is to have a system that everyone is comfortable with.
The point that I'm getting at in this thread is that one cannot expect to transfer something that works within one harmonious population into another, significantly larger one with the same good results.
Case in point to your Southeast: why did perestroika and glastnost (apparently) fail within Russia to bring about a western-style political and economic system? Maybe such did occur, and the media have distorted the situation. Could Garry Kasparov actually win the election, and carry Swedish-style reform there?

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[richie2000]

Actually, I don't think neither the US nor the Russian Federation are really harmonious populations right now, if they ever were. I do however believe that Swedish-style reforms would work for a pretty large subset of either population, making it a good complementary alternative to existing systems. Then again, I'm generally not a big believer in one-size-fits-all reforms, systems or methods, instead preferring a loose framework of guidelines within which several systems can co-exist, fulfilling slightly different needs in different ways for different people.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

Actually, I don't think neither the US nor the Russian Federation are really harmonious populations right now, if they ever were.

This is what meant to say.

I do however believe that Swedish-style reforms would work for a pretty large subset of either population, making it a good complementary alternative to existing systems.

Do not agree. Once setting down the road, as with garbage collection in a software project, the system needs to devour all.

Then again, I'm generally not a big believer in one-size-fits-all reforms, systems or methods, instead preferring a loose framework of guidelines within which several systems can co-exist, fulfilling slightly different needs in different ways for different people.

The a libertarian, every-individual-for-themself approach might be preferred.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[richie2000]

The a libertarian, every-individual-for-themself approach might be preferred. I believe this option can (and should) exist within a larger, non-libertarian, framework of the type I outlined in the parent post. I can't prove it, but I don't think I've been proven wrong with historical samples either. :-) In essence, I think "opting-out" should always be possible for anyone who so desires, alternatively that could be the norm with "opting-in" a viable option instead.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

Yet, I cannot punt on this lousy Social Security...

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[richie2000]

Imagine a system where you can choose from a wide variety of health-care "providers". You get a certain minimum emergency care via your federal taxes (as most people don't need that kind of care, it shouldn't be that expensive when the costs get shared by the whole population) and get to pick a method for financing all other needs, be it .gov-organized or private insurance, taking out a mortgage if need be, or simply putting some away in your mattress for a rainy day. Your choice. Also your choice where to go, regardless of financing method. Even with the low-level tax-sponsored .gov insurance, you can get care at the best hospital in the world, albeit only for a brief period or in the basement unless you pad the financing with some other means. Conversely, you can use your private insurance to go to a .gov hospital if that happens to be the one nearby when you get a cardiac arrest or a Nobel prize winning surgeon happens to be there slumming. Or if you just want your money to take you a loooong way on hospital food. Again, your choice. And, if you want to live off in the woods on deer and berries, bartering with the locals for some ointments, that's fine too. Eat a squirrel for me.

That's why I don't like the idea of one-system-fits-all. People aren't peas in a pod.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

Yes. There is a fundamental problem, though. Socialism is a belief system. Once civil servants become entrenched in power, they see a divine mandate to putter about with policy and peoples' lives. There is simply too much coupling (in the computer science meaning of the term) with these socialized systems.
A practical implementation that I can somewhat respect is that of the Amish. But there, adherence to the behavioral norm comes at a steep price.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[richie2000]

Once civil servants become entrenched in power, they see a divine mandate to putter about with policy and peoples' lives. I agree, and that's actually a big part of what's wrong with the Swedish system right now. We used to have laws where civil servants were personally responsibile for their actions and decisions, but those was rescinded years ago. There definitely needs to be some serious checks and balances in place for it to work.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[smittyoneeach]

I have heard it said that one of the side-effects of bureaucracy is to disperse blame, and lower individual accountability.
When studying management or organizational behavior in school, the emphasis always seemed to be on policy, procedure, and process.
Yet, when you cross over to a study of history, in stark contrast, you find that all of the points of inflection are centered upon individuals. Typically their ruthlessness, but often sheer greatness (Ghandi) is what actually matters. Bureaucracy, in contrast, seems to be about crushing individuality, and Socialism, perhaps unfairly, gets tarred with the same brush.
Hence the negative view of Socialism on the left side of the Atlantic.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[Arcane_Rhino]

I don't believe the GP is mislead. He is making the observation that while it may be "...entirely possible for the government to pay for healthcare, or ensure private groups pay for it, without dictating terms to those who use it[,]" which I quite frankly doubt, historically speaking, NO government program has EVER operated that way. And, regarding healthcare, specifically, look towards either the Canadian or European model, if you think the government does not manage the terms of patient care, it is you who has been misled.

Now to be fair, your comment that "...[liberals do not want government] to start making decisions about patient care" is entirely true. Liberals or, more accurately in this context, social progressives always believe government intervention is a good thing; and are always surprised when this results in losses to individual freedoms and choices.

Should it be that way? Perhaps, perhaps not. But, at least in the US, whenever the Government extorts money (income taxes) it is expected by the populous that they have a right to demand an accounting of how that money is spent. (We may not get it, but we believe we have that right.) This perspective alone will always ensure governmental programs dictate terms to the recipients.

Sounds good to me

[BlueParrot]

I don't see any red flags...

Re:Sounds good to me

[Nom du Keyboard]

I don't see any red flags

Of course you don't. That's because you're a Blue Parrot.

Re:Sounds good to me

[HiThere]

It requires trusting the people who will be collecting the information. Experience proves that they are *NOT* trustworthy, and don't have your best interests at heart.

Even if you can't get total privacy, get what you can, and don't give up easily. Those who are trying to replace privacy with trusting large organizations are doing so because large organizations can be threatened by larger or more powerful (or even just more committed) organizations.

P.S.: Remember that "Do Not Call" list? That one shares your phone number with all telemarketers, so they'll know who not to call. It expires next year, and they've got your number.

Re:Sounds good to me

[hobo sapiens]

'P.S.: Remember that "Do Not Call" list? That one shares your phone number with all telemarketers, so they'll know who not to call. It expires next year, and they've got your number.'

Any references? It was supposed to expire in the sense that people would have to re-register. I have never read that it is going to expire and become a "call-us-now-since-you-haven't-talked-to-us-in-five-years" list. But even the expiration that would require you to re-register is on thin ice. See here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/dnctestimony.shtm

Re:Sounds good to me

[Schmodus]

We all know that they *always* had our number. What? You don't use your credit card? Sometimes they'll even ask for your zip code.

Re:Sounds good to me

[HiThere]

I had heard that the authorizing bill expired. Perhaps your version of the story is more correct. In any case, between the time that your coverage expires and the time you reregister your number could be freely shared or sold, say, with people outside the country who wouldn't be bound by the reregistration.

Re:Sounds good to me

[UncleTogie]

Any references? It was supposed to expire in the sense that people would have to re-register.

Anecdotally speaking, it's quickly becoming a moot point...

A friend that used to work at a call center said this is what happens now:

1. Gov't collects DNC list.
2. Gov't sends list to telemarketing firms, via registered mail.
3. Telemarketing firm DENIES delivery. It gets sent back.
4. ???
5. Profit!

I've not verified that m'self, but I've noticed one difference since the DNC list went into effect, and especially in the last year:

MANY more automated calls. Where in the past, I could tell the human on the line to "take me off their list", a robo-call doesn't allow the same.... and I've not heard many telemarketing calls of the human variety calling here recently...

Has anyone else seen this pattern?

Re:Sounds good to me

[hobo sapiens]

I'll trade you an anecdote for an anecdote.

I am on the DNC list. I get no calls, with one exception: the companies that are allowed to call me; companies I have done business with. I have a Discover card and they call me about once a month to try to sell me something else. That's pretty annoying, but still...I used to get calls all the stinking time, especially after I bought a house. The DNC list has worked well for me. So, while the scenario you describe could very well happen, it hasn't affected me.

I, for one...

[Grandiloquence]

I, for one, welcome the impending removal of our old tyrannical police-state masters. www.ronpaul2008.com

Re:I, for one...

[arth1]

I for one don't think we'll get MORE liberties by voting for right-wing populists.

Re:I, for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a South Park episode waiting to happen...

So a wackjob Paul supporter got teamed up one by a shitload of rational and childish liberals.
So what?

The democrats have their femi-nazis, communists, Al Sharptons, and PETAs.
The Paul camp has every flavor of anti-authoritarian under the sun... including wackjobs.

Why don't you invite some of the Goons to debate economics and Ron Paul's platform on kitcomm.com? They don't tolerate wackjobs there.

I extend the invite to the goons myself but I'm not going to pay to post on a forum.

(Considering the USD exchange rate right now, fiat supporters really don't have much of a leg to stand on or room to talk. Inflating a currency is almost justifiable if the intention is to postpone deflation till after a crisis, but it seems the American people don't have the discipline and need their credit cards taken away. So says the mortgage defaults.)

Re:I, for one...

[c6gunner]

Ah, yes, you're going to improve things by voting for a lunatic who wants to repeal Roe vs Wade, and move US currency back to the gold standard. Right.

There's a reason why all the conspiracy theorists and ultra-right fascist support him, and it aint because of his cute smile. You'd get better results by voting for Denis "CIA-mind-control-satellites" Kucinich.

And let's not pretend that Paul has any chance in hell of winning. He's polling at what, 4% now? Hell, even Bush could raise more support than that!

In summation: you're nuts. Although, on the bright side, I'd rather have you throwing away your vote on Ron Paul than actually affecting the US political system.

Re:I, for one...

[mOdQuArK!]

A lot of people aren't voting for Ron Paul because they believe the same things he does. They're voting for him because he represents the only politician who they believe means it when he says he's going to completely upset the status quo.

If he were elected, I'm not sure how much of his own agenda he'd be able to accomplish since he can only propose new legislation & veto things he disagrees with, but he could make it VERY difficult for Congress to pass things that there wasn't unanimous agreement about, and he wouldn't be giving the protection of the President's Office to those agents of the executive branch who are blatantly violating the Constitution.

Re:I, for one...

[Felix Da Rat]

I'm sad to say you're right, Paul has little to no chance of winning. Of even showing up on the ballots. Then again, neither do you or I, so I guess that's a moot point. I'm not sure how you got to nut cases and fascists, but I'd like to learn more of how you came to associate those with Dr. Paul, who from all I can tell wants to tare down centralized government. I guess it is insane to want what we were promised and grew up believing we have.

As for the Roe v Wade issue, I'm not a fan of him on that point. But, and it's a big BUT, his belief (as I understand it) is that should be a personal / community, or state issue, and not federal. Abortions would still be legal with out a doubt in pretty much every blue state, and most likely a fair number of red states. Why is the federal government, which exists for disputes between states involved? This isn't the place to argue that tired old fight (As a bachelor, I'm in favor if it), but I believe that we exist within the laws of our community, and with 250M people some aren't going to like some laws. Find a community which has similar values and laws and live there. You can do that in a state driven country, but not in a federal one.

Heck, all of us tinfoil hat fascist types can have our own state and leave you alone. You can have your like minded state and think we're all insane, and we'll be America, the big dysfunctional family.

Re:I, for one...

[c6gunner]

That's rather like giving Jeffry Dahmer the keys to your house because you think he'd be an interesting interior decorator.

I mean, your assessment is absolutely correct...and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people actually think that way is damn scary!

Re:I, for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, I rather thought that was the purpose of the law, to make sure the people doing the surveillance actually have a reason to snoop on you.

Re:I, for one...

[Torvaun]

But he can't move U.S. currency back to the gold standard. Best odds say that he won't get the chance to build a Supreme Court willing to repeal Roe vs. Wade either, but even if he did, would it be so bad to have that be decided by the states instead of on a national level? Personally, I've always subscribed to the "If you don't like abortions, don't get one." view.

Re:I, for one...

[kendbluze]

thank you.

Re:I, for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I gonna become firebait but let me say something about this pathetic Ron Paul thing:
Have any of the parakeets here, that keep repeating what the mainstream "cool" geek-masters say, but have any of the parakeets actually read Ron Paul's proposals?
The guy is a freaking conservative-christian-proto-nazi way worse than Bush!
Just because he doesn't want a national ID? Well, David Koresh's church and the Arian Party of America don't want that as well! And he is not even the paladin of the freedom and constitution that the geek-masters here keep saying.
He is a loser, for a loser America, on the loser ostracism of our Nation.
We are a nation of paranoid losers. There is no freaking Al Qaeda! Watch Michael Moore! The NSA-CIA-FBI Gestapo thing blew the WTC and the Pentagon up! Anyone that does a search for Mohamad Atta on Google, will find that the guy was trained by our own secret services and was sponsored to get a FULLY LEGAL visa into the US!
So, cut this crap of war on terror, and go take care of saving our economy before it gets too late, and we all become employees of some China-India transnational company, as the dollar buying power is vanishing.

Re:I, for one...

[Cerebus]

Here's a great run-down of Ron Paul's Congressional whack-nuttery:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Re:I, for one...

[Cerebus]

But he can't move U.S. currency back to the gold standard.

But he's tried. See the list here:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Re:I, for one...

[mOdQuArK!]

It's called voting strategically. A lot of people understand the concept, even if you don't.

By the way, your comparison of Ron Paul to Dahmer is over the line. It reveals more about your character than Ron Paul's.

Re:I, for one...

[Cerebus]

Abortions would still be legal with out a doubt in pretty much every blue state, and most likely a fair number of red states. Why is the federal government, which exists for disputes between states involved?

Because access to fundamental services should not be a lottery decided by place of birth. I should have thought that much was obvious.

Re:I, for one...

[catmistake]

Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and have the US back its own currency... not sure where parent got the gold standard thing. The FED is the main reason there's economic resessions every 10 years, built into the system, so its not that bad of an idea. Worked for Lincoln, didn't it?

Re:I, for one...

[MightyMartian]

Ah, yes, you're going to improve things by voting for a lunatic who wants to repeal Roe vs Wade, and move US currency back to the gold standard. Right.

I agree. Why anyone would want to vote for the ghost of Ayn Rand is quite beyond me.

Re:I, for one...

[c6gunner]

Thanks for the well thought out response, it's a rarity around here.

I'll answer your questions quickly:

The bit about tinfoil-hatters and ts supporting Ron Paul? Take a look at any message board where 9/11 "truthers" gather, or have a listen to one of the Alex Jones "shows". You seem to be unaware of it, but amongst the mentally unbalanced, Ron Paul is practically a rock star.

The part about Roe vs Wade was adequately answered by another commenter. I believe he said it "shouldn't be a based on where you were born", which is exactly right. I'm sure you wouldn't be a fan of making , , or child abuse legal in certain states either. I'm not even sure where I personally stand on the issue of abortion, but I do know that whether you make it legal or illegal is not a decision to be made by individual states. It's a human rights issue, and as such should be universal, or at least federal :)

And as for the bit about having my own "like minded state", that's the last thing I want. Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments. Diversity encourages constant change, and it is without a doubt a huge advantage that western nations have over more isolationist countries. It's also perhaps the best reason I can think of for NOT allowing states to become miniature nations - such a system would encourage further isolation and alienation amongst political, ural, and even religious lines. You think Texans New Yorkers now, just wait until they've been practically autonomous for a few decades. Do you really want to Balcanize the US?

Don't get me wrong, I deffinitely believe in limited government, and I think many other western nations (UK and Canada for instance) have gone too far in the opposite direction. But it's a very fine line.

Re:I, for one...

[c6gunner]

Strangely enough, I'm a fan of Ayn Rand :) I still think Paul's a wanker, though.

Re:I, for one...

[thej1nx]

you are assuming that any future president will happily seek to get restricted/removed any power he has gained.

Assuming that there is someone who actually wants to become the president out of a true desire to serve the people, what is to stop the next guy from undoing any changes he makes? Once an unopposed precedent has been allowed and set, the law merely becomes silly putty and loses any real meaning.

How many people die/suffer from various diseases like AIDS, cancer etc. every year? How many people get killed in drunken auto-accidents every year? And how do those figure compare to the ones that died on 9-11? Where is the proportionate response to those other deaths? Or are we choosing between the types of deaths now?

But of course, there is no sensationalism in trying to find a cure for cancer or AIDS. It is easier to appeal to "patriotism" than to appeal to common sense and basic human decency. You cannot invade diseases. And there are no votes in trying to making laws to combat drunken driving, on an equal level as the war efforts against an imaginary threat in Iraq.

Is the USA any safer today? Have they done even the simplest thing possible to prevent hijacks? Namely, seal off access to pilot cabins from the rest of the plane? Is it even possible to close up every single manner of attack against every possible kind of enemy? Today it is muslims, tomorrow it might be mexicans. The brilliant response by USA government to an threat specifically "external", is to spy on its *own* citizens. Makes perfect sense and speaks volume about a President and Government that distrusts its own people.

If it is the terrorists came in posing as students, why is that an excuse to spy on *American* citizens? Lots of less people would have objected, if it was just the foreigners that were subjected to even round the clock surveillance. Lots of other countries do that. And it is perfectly acceptable to not implicitly trust an outsider. The visitors would probably hardly object either. But instead, this government wants an excuse to spy on its own citizens and it is somehow "patriotic".

And with all this talk of sacrificing and terror, why has George Bush failed to catch Bin Laden? Did he even ever intend to? Why is all this effort, all these massive resources not focussed on doing something more productive? Something that may actually save millions of lives that are lost to diseases or road-accidents every year?

Re:I, for one...

[Maxo-Texas]

While I agree with you that he would repeal RvW,

he would not continue to expand the government.
he would not continue to take our civil rights and privacy
he would not continue to raise the cost of government
he would do what he says he would and has a long voting record showing he does do what he says.

Right now- all other republican and democratic are lying so badly that we are literally voting for mystery men owned by the corporations.

RvW can go down for ten or twenty years so we do not lose the entire country. Indeed, a lot of benefit would come from it going down. Right now all the young females don't seem to get how much is at stake. And the older people have forgotten about their daughters bleeding to death in back alleys.

Ron Paul may not win, but he has a chance to shift the republicans back to being a small government party. Right now they are like a bunch of pro business, fascist, drunken sailors.

Re:I, for one...

[Maxo-Texas]

As long as 50% of the voters think it is murder, then there is a basic disagreement about what is the basic civil right (right to live or right to choose).

The basic organization of the US is to recognize that people disagree- and yet we can work together. When you force every single damn issue to the national level, then you leave people no chance to move away from areas they disagree with and they start getting pretty pissy and intolerant.

Re:I, for one...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

he would not continue to expand the government.

I am afraid he would since many of his "morality" proposals require wide-spread governmental powers. Same for his militaristic (which he denies while actively foting for them) and many other aspirations. He simply wants the big governmental powers in places different from where they are now. This is in actuality the same problem most of the "small government" conservatives have, they all come with pet wacko social dogmas, enforcement of which is completely at odds with their espoused views on the mechanics of governance.

he would not continue to take our civil rights and privacy

Only if it came to abortion ... or sex between people he does not approve of ... or racial segregation ... or religious persecution ... or corporate excesses such as trusts and monopolies ... or basic social safety nets ... etc and so on

He would not continue to raise the cost of government

See above. His practical, deeply cherished by him beliefs are at odds with his overall proclamations.

he would do what he says he would and has a long voting record showing he does do what he says.

Err, it is not a good thing. Let me repost this link from another poster's post. Go see yourself.

Right now- all other republican and democratic are lying so badly that we are literally voting for mystery men owned by the corporations.

Unfortunately Ron Paul is no panacea for this.

Ron Paul may not win, but he has a chance to shift the republicans back to being a small government party. Right now they are like a bunch of pro business, fascist, drunken sailors.

And is a faux-Libertarian, nationalistic religious racist zealot any better? This straregy of trying to elect a patently disturbed individual so to "upset" the staus quo of corrupt fat fascists does not strike me as a particularly wise one. There are some wee unintended consequences possible that I can see, even if you don't.

Re:I, for one...

[tm2b]

As for the Roe v Wade issue, I'm not a fan of him on that point. But, and it's a big BUT, his belief (as I understand it) is that should be a personal / community, or state issue, and not federal.

Not true. He's a hypocrite on this, he voted for the law making D&C abortions a federal crime.

For Ron Paul, regulating abortion isn't a federal power when the majority wish to permit abortion, except when the votes can be mustered to oppose it.

Re:I, for one...

[Russ Nelson]

You're criticizing Ron Paul by citing Michael Moore?

Wow. I'm speechless.

Re:I, for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards. And, no, I am NOT an American.

That's funny, you sound like an American.

Re:I, for one...

[Russ Nelson]

The problem with Roe vs Wade is that abortion is a medical procedure which should be allowed or prohibited at the state level. Perhaps you're too young to remember when some states had made abortion legal and others not? People were organizing transportation to abortion-legal states -- and the abort-illegal states CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. That's how our country is supposed to work -- the federal government can only do a few things, and the state governments can't regulate your behavior too badly because you can always move to another state. The design protected freedom, but IDIOTS allowed the federal government to go beyond its allowed powers.

There's nothing wrong with a gold standard unless you try to do something stupid like fix the value of your currency relative to somebody else's currency. That's why we went off the gold standard in the first place.

Yes, some conspiracy nuts and fascists support him. Some socialists support Hillary. Same insanity, different candidate. The fact that nuts are in favor of one candidate or another should be no constraint on whom you support.

Re:I, for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

I reviewed all those House bills and I would have voted for almost all of them.

Re:I, for one...

[intchanter]

After reviewing the summaries of the whole list, the only way I can see you justifying your claim of "whack-nuttery" is if you believe that government exists to allow you to force others to pay for your personal agendas or punish them for doing things that you don't like.

A big problem with that point of view is that it makes the government a puppet for whoever screams most loudly, at the expense of everybody else. And since the loudest voice is constantly changing, we end up with the worst of all worlds, more tangled laws and regulations than a reasonable person will ever read, and a rapidly growing government.

"Ron Paul's Congressional whack-nuttery" is the first real chance to break away from that in a very long time, and his claims are only further backed up by your link. I could run through that list of proposed bills one by one, if you like, but this really isn't the forum for that.

If you have another reason for believing that the misrepresentations on the page linked are evidence of a real problem with Ron Paul's record, I'd love to hear them.

Re:I, for one...

[Cerebus]

When you're poor, you don't have a chance to move away anyway. Did you have some kind of point?

Re:I, for one...

[falconwolf]

nd as for the bit about having my own "like minded state", that's the last thing I want. Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments. Diversity encourages constant change, and it is without a doubt a huge advantage that western nations have over more isolationist countries. It's also perhaps the best reason I can think of for NOT allowing states to become miniature nations - such a system would encourage further isolation and alienation amongst political, ural, and even religious lines. You think Texans New Yorkers now, just wait until they've been practically autonomous for a few decades. Do you really want to Balcanize the US?

That's the thing about states being able to set their own laws. Instead of one national lab, there can be 50 different labs. What then works in one state can be copied in other states and visa versa, what doesn't work in one state other states don't have to waste money trying out the same thing. In the end what works would spread faster and what fails will be gotten rid of.

Falcon

Re:I, for one...

[falconwolf]

Because access to fundamental services should not be a lottery decided by place of birth. I should have thought that much was obvious.

I wonder how many people, adults, still live in the state they were born in. I've lived in 6 different states and haven't been back to the state I was born in since moving out of the state when I was 3.

Falcon

Re:I, for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the stock Democrat/Republican version of "I don't agree with what he says"....whack-nuttery. If you aren't voting for one or the other side of the same coin, it's all "whack nuttery."

Re:I, for one...

[moeinvt]

"Ron Paul? Take a look at any message board where 9/11 "truthers" gather . . . amongst the mentally unbalanced, Ron Paul is practically a rock star."

Just because some fringe radicals support a particular candidate doesn't mean that candidate is "wrong" or somehow less deserving of support.

"[abortion] is not a decision to be made by individual states. It's a human rights issue . . ."

I believe that a woman should be free to make that decision, but abortion is not a "right" in the same sense as the "Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution, and it should most definitely be left up to the states. Your "legal child abuse" scenario is a silly straw-man argument.

"Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments."

I don't see how restoring states' rights would impede discovery and development. If anything, you'd end up with MORE diversity. The fact that you point out a glaring difference between Texans and New Yorkers is even more evidence to show that a one size fits all Federal Government is inherently unworkable.

Re:I, for one...

[dreamchaser]

A lot of those made me think more of him, not less. Did you also read the bills themselves, or did you just go by sensationalistic explanations on the page you cited and the bill names?

Re:I, for one...

[arosboro]

I did, and I can see how the author of this blog added a lot of spin. for example: He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation If you read the summary text of Bill H.R. 300 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00300:@@@L&summ2=m&, it's looks like power from the federal courts is being handed down to the states so that they can decide how to handle these issues. If the states have the ability to make laws the way they see fit, then citizens are better represented by them.

Re:I, for one...

[Maxo-Texas]

Poor people move all the time. You can move across the country in the US for under two hundred dollars. I have friends who are poor single moms who have moved out of state and back in state in just the last three years.

You always have freedom to leave. You can *walk* across the country in 150 days. You can hop a bus for under $150 to cut most of that time off.

However, if the laws are the same everywhere, then freedom to move doesn't make much of a difference.

Re:I, for one...

[Maxo-Texas]

Sorry for the crappy modding.

You posted strongly something you believed in sincerely and I do not think you were trolling (posting something inflammatory that you probably do not believe with the intent of irritating people while you laugh at their responses while you don't care either way to begin with).

I still think you have bought into the republican backed smear campaign on Ron Paul and are mistaken. But that's no excuse for downmodding you just because you express your honest opinion.

Re:I, for one...

[Loki_1929]

I'm sure there must be some reason why I can't tell whether that blog poster (and yes, the 'site' cited is actually nothing more than the incoherent ramblings of yet another of 10 trillion 'bloggers') is far left wing or far right wing. The only thing I can tell for sure is that they're unstable at room temperature.

Let's get a few things straight:

1) Refusing to finance a given decision does NOT mean you are against having choice in the matter
2) Shifting power from the Federal government to the state governments does NOT equal fascism
3) Refusing to subsidize something does NOT equate to being against it
4) Being thrifty when it's not your money does NOT equate to being a religious whackjob
5) The US Consitution still defines the role of the Federal government. Since the Federal government has proven many times over that it only does well the jobs laid out for it by the US Constitution, it makes sense that we restrict its roles thereto.

Ron Paul isn't a nut - he's just thinking far beyond the average member of the body politic.

Re:I, for one...

[Sloppy]

I know that I disagree with Paul about a few things, but even of the things where we disagree, a lot of these bills really look like he's attempting to get the Feds to defer to states on the issues. In many instances, it looks like he might just be grumpy that the Feds have exceeded their constitutional powers. The fact that the Feds happen to be [ab]using their power in a way that is popular, is beside the point.

If you establish that an relatively unaccountable party should be omnipotent, then that's only a Good Thing for as long as that party acts like your friend. It reminds me of all the Republicans that want to increase executive power, with their heads in the sand when you ask 'em what President Hillary might do with that power.

The blogger looks like he has a lot more 'whack-nuttery' than Ron Paul.

Look at the bills about "educational standards," for example, where the blogger states, "he would weaken educational standards by using Federal power to interfere with states improving their standards for teacher certification". To spin that as somehow anti-education, is ridiculous. Letting states decide their standards, isn't anti-education. Withholding federal funds for education, isn't anti-education. These types of things move education issues closer to home and put the power (and accountability) in the hands of people that a citizen can actually meet with, realistically campaign for/against, etc. Destroying all federal involvement in, and funding for, education would possible be the most spectacular pro- education things that a modern politician in Washington could possibly do. And some crackpot implies that it would weaken education? Sheesh.

And then look at this: "And short of that [cutting taxes] he wants us to pay our income taxes every month, and not use withholding." How could anyone view that as whack-nuttery? Making citizens more aware of, informed about, and involved with their taxes, would be a great way of increasing their civic activism, and overall, promote democracy. Just who is the whack-nut here? I get the feeling the blogger just wants everyone to not think about what their government is doing, and just veg out in front of the TV every night.

Security Through Obscurity

[MankyD]

"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr.

Try telling that to John Smith.

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[falconwolf]

"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr.

Try telling that to John Smith.

Yea, Googling my name, first and last, I got almost 300,000 results. Adding a middle initial I still got almost 2000. Spelling out the middle name I still got more than 100. And I'm a nobody.

Falcon

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[Stanislav_J]

I have yet to see anything turn up relating to me via my legal name (and variations) on Google. I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted.....

Basically, the more public the life you lead, the more apt you are to be found on Google. I've led a very hermit-like life and am very, very careful about who gets my personal information and why. Google knows me not -- I've never been the subject of or quoted in any news stories, I have not worked for any company or belonged to any organization that might put a staff or membership list online, etc., etc. Even if you try the various public records searches, my name will pop up occasionally, but 95% of what turns up is outdated information anyway, and what is there could be found without the Internet via a trip to the courthouse. I am well aware that the tide is turning (has turned) and that you can't totally hide in this day and age. But at the same time, that doesn't mean I'm going to hand over the details of my life on a silver platter. I understand that if someone really wanted to find me, they could. But at least they will have to work hard to do so.

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[falconwolf]

I have yet to see anything turn up relating to me via my legal name (and variations) on Google. I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted.....

I'm relieved I don't find anything personal about me, but also disappointed I haven't done anything note worthy.

Falcon

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[Techogeek]

I've typed in my name, email address and phone number and nothing has come up.. Does that mean I am still anonymous? NOPE. I have an unlisted phone number and still get the junk calls like everybody else. So why do we even bother trying to stay under the radar when it's no longer possible? It's because WE still hope it can be done. Privacy issues have been around for a long long time even back before the Internet became a household item. What's changed you ask? Not a whole lot except now the government can do anything they want without our knowledge! Wait a minute, they could already do that!

People in general have become more aware that privacy is just an illusion which makes a lot of more paranoid people running around screaming about it. (Conspiracy Theory) I'm not the first one and certainly not the last one that wants to get the veritible nose of the government out of my stuff. I'm a law abiding citizen and keep to myself but I sure don't want them sniffing through my dirty laundry because we all have it. Give us our illusion back so we can all go about our business as usual! .... Anonimity is a lie! .....

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[IdleTime]

Well, I am the only one with the name I have,. there are 23 people with the same last name as I have in the whole world, how would you feel in that situation?

Luckily, everyone but me lives in a country with strict laws and regulations when it comes to privacy and the individuals right to privacy is paramount same with freedom. Not something that can be said of USA at all, no freedom, no privacy, and a lot of ra-ra cheers...

Americans will accept this with a smile, they will even stand up and fight for taking away rights from them, just as long as you don't take away the soap operas and the reality shows, you are OK, you can take away all the rights and liberty you want, they will not protest but assist you in doing so.

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[falconwolf]

Luckily, everyone but me lives in a country with strict laws and regulations when it comes to privacy and the individuals right to privacy is paramount same with freedom. Not something that can be said of USA at all, no freedom, no privacy, and a lot of ra-ra cheers...

Actually though a person could never tell by the Bush admin's actions, privacy is a right in the US. A USSC ruling in the early 1800s, along with others, even said this.

Americans will accept this with a smile, they will even stand up and fight for taking away rights from them, just as long as you don't take away the soap operas and the reality shows, you are OK, you can take away all the rights and liberty you want, they will not protest but assist you in doing so.

Unfortunately there are many in the US will just roll over but not everyone does.

Falcon

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[Anonymous Coward]

But he posts under 'John Doe'.

-Anonymous Coward

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you are really fun at parties.

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[irtza]

Well,

having an uncommon name makes it hard to hide - especially if you don't care if people know.

If someone wanted to target me specifically, I think they would be able to peace together enough information even without the internet.

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[hobo sapiens]

"Well, I am the only one with the name I have,. there are 23 people with the same last name as I have in the whole world, how would you feel in that situation?"

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?! Your name is my name too!

Re:Security Through Obscurity

[Shadow99_1]

The only thing I've ever found was a picture I used to test 'ourmedia' a few years back... everything else talks about other people with the same name as me... However if I type in my most commonly used name online, then that shows results for me... How you'd link the two though is a good question... I know Google can't manage it...

FSIA?

[Anonymous Coward]

as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act

You mean, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, commonly referred to as FISA?

Re:FSIA?

[Anonymous Coward]

"(This version CORRECTS `Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act' to `Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act')"

That was quick. They must be reading /.

US Official Urges Americans Not To Reconsider

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

- BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755

We had better government officials back then.

Remember, remember...

"Fundamentally different"

[Stanislav_J]

"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties."

The difference being that while I trust no one, I trust the government with the information even less, because they have the power to screw me over to such a greater degree.

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[NormalVisual]

And they're much less accountable for it, too.

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[Kythe]

What Mr. Kerr seems to miss is that the reason for government being fundamentally different than private companies is checks and balances.

Private companies answer only to a limited number of customers; government (in theory) answers to all the voting population.

Of course, when oversight (the checks and balances) is removed, government no longer answers to the people, and the potential for harm is exponentially greater, simply because the amount of potential power is greater.

Government CAN be on the side of the angels. But without checks such as anonymity, it can be democracy and freedom's worst enemy.

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[Stanislav_J]

...government (in theory) answers to all the voting population.

Unfortunately, much of the voting population is too busy watching "American Idol" or buying a new cell phone...

Government CAN be on the side of the angels.

I think that Paradise was Lost a long time ago.

There's a quote I recall, though not who said it:

"What the government wants to do, and has the power to do, it will do -- law, ethics, and common sense notwithstanding."

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[DeadDecoy]

The other side of the argument is that there is no such thing as privacy nowadays and that having regulations in place to protect privacy is naive daydreaming. Having such regulations, then, would only hinder law abiding agencies but do little agencies with a team of lawyers and skewed vision of what is legal from obtaining your information.

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[dabraun]

Actually, the most important fundamental difference IMO is that a private entity doesn't get to say "sorry, you can't have that info, national security and all you know" when an investigation proceeds against them. The government is ultimately accountable to no one - sure, for small things you may be able to win - but for the areas they want these new powers they can use their magic terrorism card every time and no one will be able to check their actions.

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[rts008]

I'm glad to see that the current mod's seem to be awake and gave you some /. love!

Something that I've not seen mentioned yet though is all of the gov't. employee laptop (thus data on who knows what!) thefts that have occurred.
Even given trustworthy deeds by the gov't. itself(note: could not type that with a straight face!), we are still at risk from this, and other deeds from hackers and such.

This current administration scares me more and more every day. I HOPE we can actually make it to the next election without some type of fscked up monarchy sidetracking it somehow, and can benefit from said election to correct this crap that has been happening.

Yeah, you are right there about being screwed...the only way to be screwed worse than your friends and family can do to you is by the gov't.

Again, I'm glad you got the 'Fistful of Insightful' (+5) from the current mod's!

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[Jack9]

The government is a private party. Both legally and practically...or is it 2 parties. Nah, it's one private party.

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference being that while I trust no one, I trust the government with the information even less, because they have the power to screw me over to such a greater degree.

Does your current employer have more or less power to screw you over than the government?

Do all of the employers in your industry together have more or less power to screw you over than the government?

Re:"Fundamentally different"

[Loki_1929]

Government is a necessary evil - often more evil than necessary.

Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[Dutchmaan]

"Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information."

Yes, lets 'redfine' privacy to mean "we know what you do, we will just be responsible with the information"

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[ShieldW0lf]

That's what they have now. That's what the guy is trying with little success to express to everyone.

The government already knows. FBI, they know. CIA, they know. Google, MS, IBM, AT&T, Visa, MasterCard, the list goes on and on.

The million dollar question is, what is wrong with people that they'd sacrifice the ability to also know what is actually going on if it will prevent the neighbour from knowing what they do with their weekends, when people are already using that same knowledge to conspire against them in the commercial sphere and in the political sphere?

Anyone able to explain this to me? It looks like an absolutely drooling-idiot kind of retarded position from where I'm sitting.

(No, I don't care if you put a webcam in my shower or jerk off to pictures of Margret Thatcher. So, don't bother asking. It's not clever like you think it is.)

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[dgatwood]

Indeed, that pretty much constitutes the definition of "trust". You share secrets with people you trust. What these political trolls are asking us to do is trust the government---yet on nearly every occasion in the past, they have proven utterly unworthy of that trust. Hell, they can't even keep computers from walking away from Lawrence Livermore National Labs. If we can't even trust them to keep their own nuclear secrets safe, how can we possibly be expected to trust them to keep our private information safe?

This is literally the epitome of the phrase "wolf guarding the henhouse". The entire purpose of large parts of our Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens from our own government---to ensure that the government cannot do precisely what this person is asking us to let it do.

So my question to anyone seriously considering his statement is this: What ever happened to "I... will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Are those mere words, or do they mean something? Because if we give in to this tyranny, we are saying that those are mere words---that the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, of the Bill of Rights---indeed, the spirit of America---is nothing more than a statement of naive ideals to be respected only when it is convenient.

No, this is not the time to cave in. Indeed, it is when we are most threatened that we must most firmly cling to our principles. It is easy to do the right thing when it is convenient; only the truly good continue to do good when it is hard. It is time that we as a nation stand up and tell the world, "This is what we believe. This is who we are as a nation." Are we going to be a nation of fear? Are we going to be a nation of paranoia, not trusting our neighbors and telling the government every time they sneeze in the interests of protecting ourselves? Are we going to be a nation of terrified little children who cower in our beds out of fear that the big bad terrorist boogeyman will get us? Or are we going to be a proud nation standing strong as a beacon of freedom and light to a darkened world?

A time of great tribulation is upon us. Everyone must choose a side. Will you choose the side of right---of freedom---or the side of wrong---of tyranny, oppression, and fear? Only you can decide. As for me, I choose the side of truth. To Mr. Kerr, I'm sorry if the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are inconvenient for you, but maybe, just maybe, that is because you're doing something you shouldn't be doing in the first place. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[MacTO]

I work in a university environment, and we handle a lot of information that has been defined as private. In the process, I have noticed that the definition of privacy usually covers things that don't really matter and outright ignores things that do matter. As a result, the degree of bureaucracy is increasing, the quality of education is decreasing, and nobody is really being protected. Now if we were granted real privacy protections, I would happily live with a few inconveniences. But the sad fact of the matter is that we aren't granted real privacy protections. After all, through lobbying and legal loopholes, our corporate "partners" can pretty much do with our privacy what they please.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[Watson Ladd]

The US has rarely been a beacon of light. Look at Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama(twice), and Chile for examples. What makes this different is they've turned on the population of the US. Every one of these actions has been conducted in the darkness of government secrecy, against the will of the people. Until the government is responsive to the will of the people, this kind of stuff will go on.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[sjames]

Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information."

Yeah, sure. Because they've proven to be SOOOooooo trustworthy in the past. The way people complain, you'd think they give away people's credit card numbers, sell their name, address, and phone number to telemarketers and junk mailers, and leak the real identities of CIA operatives....OH!

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[Ernesto Alvarez]

"Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information."

That's a funny phrase, considering it's supposedly an evaluation about the status after the warrantless wiretapping events, a situation where a business (AT&T) did not protect the information of its customers and gave it instead to the government.

The must have changed the meaning of the word "safeguard", and forgotten to tell me.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[sydbarrett74]

the spirit of America ... is who won last night's ballgame or fucked so-and-so's girlfriend. More people voted for an American Idol finalist than voted in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, which is a travesty.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[ultranova]

More people voted for an American Idol finalist than voted in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, which is a travesty.

The difference between American Idol and American President election is that in American Idol election you vote for the best candidate, while on the American President election you vote for the least bad, after which the Diablo voting machines discard your vote and pick the absolute worst candidate as the winner. Given this, is it any wonder that more people bother with the former than the latter ?

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[Nevyn]

Apples vs. oranges.

You mean more votes were cast, which is a very different number. You can vote as many times as you want. There are also no limitations on voting (other than access to a phone), unlike a presidential election where only non-felon citizens over 17/yo who turn up to a specific place at a specific time can vote.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[juan2074]

How about the government loses its secrecy in exchange for our tax dollars?

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[jafac]

The sick thing is;

I just got off a phone conversation - a friend of mine's 18 year old daughter, is failing civics. She asked me to talk to her, and try to explain to her why this subject was so important (beyond; if she doesn't pass, she doesn't graduate from High School).

I explained to her that what it all comes down to, is that here, in America, we (our generation) are being given a choice, whether to live free, in a dangerous world, or to be frighted into choosing to be protected slaves. That if we give up our right to privacy, to being able to confront our accuser, to being able to demand legal representation and a formal, legitimate, criminal charge when detained, to bear arms to protect ourselves, to speak and think freely, just because we're frighted of terrorism, or communism, or any other fabricated, blown-out-of-proportion-ism, that we're falling for the same arguments that the people of the USSR fell for under Stalin, we're falling for the same arguments that the people of Weimar Germany fell for under Hitler, and Italy under Moussolini, and all the way back to Rome under Caesar.

And after an hour of trying to explain this to her, she still didn't "get" it.
(maybe I should have used the example of the Republic under Palpatine. . . ?)
She had no freaking idea what I was talking about.

We are so fucked.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, they can't even keep computers from walking away from Lawrence Livermore National Labs. Are you sure this was LLNL? I don't recall that happening at Livermore. Also, the federal government doesn't run the weapons labs, contractors do. One could argue about the degree of oversight exercised, but perhaps a better example would have been the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[dgatwood]

I -think- it was a laptop theft at LLNL. I could be remembering wrong, though---it might not have been a laptop. Could have been tapes or a hard drive. Or maybe it was a bunch of devices missing from the inventory. There have been so many stories over the last five years about data-laden apparatuses disappearing from supposedly secure facilities that they all run together. :-D

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling.

[jdjbuffalo]

Yeah, that is very scary that many people don't understand what this country is supposed to stand for and why its so vitally important.

Since you didn't go into details of how you tried to communicate why it was important I'm going to assume that you didn't use any real life scenarios that she could relate to. Try putting it in a context she can understand. Try something like this...

You go to the mall and do some shopping with some friends. On your way out to your car you're stopped by a police officer. He says "I've gotten a report that you stole some stuff from the Gap (or where ever kids go now :D)". She says, "No, I've got a receipt for it officer." For the sake of argument we'll say the officer doesn't believe her and decides to arrest her.

Here is where we diverge from our story depending on which kind of government you live in. I would start by telling her how our system works. You have to be charged within 72 hours of arrest. You may then have to go before a judge and possibly jury. There you can present your argument to a neutral third party. You show them you're receipt, you have your friends testify on your behalf etc. And you get justice (we won't get into the semantics of how much it can cost to do this as that's not important when teaching someone about their rights).

And here is what would happen in a Police State. You get thrown in jail, maybe for a week, maybe for a year while awaiting a trial that may never come. You have no idea. If you're lucky you might go before a judge. You show your evidence, assuming you're even allowed to (its up to the judge). He says he thinks you faked the evidence and adds another charge of presenting false evidence to a court of law. Then he gives you a sentence of 5 years. Request for appeals are denied, no reason given. You're now in jail for 5 years and you did nothing wrong and there are no checks and balances in place to make sure that justice is served.

I'm sure you could go into even more detail than I have but I think this would get the point across. Evil prospers when good men (and women) do nothing!

Re:first fisting post!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isnt off-topic. Its a metaphor for what the government wants to do to its people. They even want you to bend over and say "Yes please"

I googled my name and...

[psychicsword]

I got about 334,000 for [First] [Last]. In the first 10 pages none of them are mine. I also googled my "[First Name] [Last Name]" [hometown] and got about 685 results. I am very careful about what I put out there, I know that I cant control everything but that is why people use usernames and not real names. All I need to do for a new Identity is create a new one and even then people will rip it off. I know that if someone really wanted to get all my info they could but they would need to invest some serious time into it and even then there is no reason to rethink privacy because there should always be a shield of privacy on the internet. If anything we should be repairing the privacy wall between the consumers and the providers.

Re:I googled my name and...

[maxume]

Yeah, but you have an extremely common first name and live in a big city(unless I stumbled upon the wrong information).

Re:I googled my name and...

[psychicsword]

No you got it right but I don't actually live in Boston just in the area, it would be crazy to put my real hometown in.

Re:I googled my name and...

[dcray2000]

My name comes back with luggage company.
Put in my hometown, high school, college, even race scores posted to the internet, nope... luggage company. Clearly my master plan is safe for now.

Re:I googled my name and...

[Torvaun]

881,000 for [First][Last]. "[First][Last]" got 749, of which 5 referred to me, 4 of which could get you my state, and two of those were on the same site.

I'm willing to give up my privacy

[m2943]

if the US government--president, NSA, CIA, FBI--are willing to give up their secrecy.

What is intolerable, however, is for government officials to have a lot of information on private citizens, but for private citizens to have little information on the government.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[mikelieman]

Keep in mind, that many Governmental functions are outsourced to private entities.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[sgt_doom]

Well said, Good Citizen m2943, well said. This from the guys who, according to recently declassified CIA documents ("The Family Jewels"), gave us biological warfare experiments on American children back in the '60s - you know, when George H.W. Bush was still with the CIA as an active agent - are just the guys I don't trust with ANYTHING!

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, information asymmetry. (One party to a transaction knows more about the value of the items exchanged than the other) Perhaps you are not all aware that it has been proven scientifically that in markets information asymmetry is all it takes to throw off a free market's ability to function.

2007 Nobel Prize in Economics

Why, being all free and open would effectively say "Let's let free markets decide whether islamists or western capitalists are right." How far would that fly? "Let's roll!" *crash* *burn*.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you are not all aware that it has been proven scientifically that in markets information asymmetry is all it takes to throw off a free market's ability to function.

(1) It never ceases to amaze me for what trivialities economic Nobel prizes are awarded.

(2) You are misapplying the result, since there exists no free market between governments and citizens; the argument against information asymmetry between the government and citizens has to be based on questions of liberty and abuse of power, not efficient markets.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[abb3w]

What is intolerable, however, is for government officials to have a lot of information on private citizens, but for private citizens to have little information on the government.

Analog SF had a story on that about 1981 or so. Anyone could look for anything that was recorded anywhere... although the act of looking for it was also recorded.

Is this guy joking?

[rolfwind]

"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties."

Definitely. For one, I can choose not to interact with certain private parties if they piss me off. But I probably can't choose to ignore the government and have to interact with it on some level.

Also, private parties can't demand I hand over certain private information -- sure, they might decide not to do business with me, but the government seems to think it's priviledged to anything and everything since the Patriot Act. Good luck turning them down.

Now it's no longer based on evidence that a crime was done -- we are welcomed to the pre-emptive society. Pre-emptive wars. Pre-emptive invasion of my privacy (without warrant) based on crimes that might happen. I'm just waiting to be pre-emptively thrown in jail.

I find it interesting that this government official is trying to sell us on the government safeguarding our information. HAH! What a joke.

Re:Is this guy joking?

[TaoPhoenix]

Bingo.

Someone post the 5 nastiest links of information abuse so we can mod them +6 Informative and shut this thread down and go to the next story.

Attend Next Spring's Political Caucuses

[davidwr]

Next Spring, almost every state will have political caucuses and conventions which will set the state parties' platforms.

Attend your local caucus or convention and try to get elected as a delegate to the state convention.

Introduce resolutions that value freedom and privacy. Lobby to get them passed.

Send a message to Washington: Privacy is important. Anonymity is an essential part of privacy.

Re:Attend Next Spring's Political Caucuses

[tarogue]

To which the sheeple will reply: "You're just paraniod! If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide. Freedom of speech is too broad."

Legal terms to promote privacy

[Benjamin_Wright]

The article notes that kids reveal much private information about themselves on myspace and facebook. Some fear that this information can damage a kids employment prospects. Heres an idea: People could post legal terms of service on their social networing pages declaring that employers and prospective employers are forbidden from looking at or copying from the pages. Such terms would be like No Trespassing signs on land. Some case law supports the notion that terms posted on a web site can restrict the right of visitors to gather information off the site. Arguably, if an employer grabs information off of a site in violation of posted terms, and that leads to termination of an employee, then the employee could sue the employer for violating the terms of the web site. Even if the terms are not legally binding on the employer, they could be ethically binding.

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[cdrguru]

Sorry, I don't believe there is any such case law.

Nor do I believe that as an employer anything you choose to reveal about yourself should not be used in a decision whether or not to hire you. If you rave on and on online endlessly about how all businesses are evil and the US government is out to get us all, you're not a candidate for any job I have. If you rave on and on about what great drugs you got last weekend and how you spent the entire time watching pretty patterns on the ceiling, you're not a candidate. If you rave on and on about any topic online that discloses a great deal about yourself, you're probably not a candidate for any job that requires tact, discretion or secrecy.

And there isn't a thing you can do about it. Think before you type.

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[falconwolf]

The article notes that kids reveal much private information about themselves on myspace and facebook.

The thing that articles like this neglect to mention is that kids lie on their profiles and chats. Here's an article from "Business Week" about "Marketing to Teens Online". One of the reasons they give for kids lying is "Kids also lie on the Web to avoid creepy predators. One parent told me her 13-year-old son's MySpace profile says he's 26 and married with two kids. Teens, sometimes with parental encouragement, will give this type of false information because they don't want to be bothered by adults looking to chat it up with children."

Falcon

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[Benjamin_Wright]

Some court cases have held that the use of information from a web site in controvention of posted terms of service is illegal. http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID460 One legal theory is that such illicit use constitutes "trespass to chattels".

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[Belial6]

Great, so you support HR denying jobs to people who post that they had a great time that the barmitsva, or that their child just got straight As in school. After all, since

Nor do I believe that as an employer anything you choose to reveal about yourself should not be used in a decision whether or not to hire you.

You clearly feel that religion and parental status are fair game in refusing job applicants. I can honestly say that if I were your employer, and you had any authority over any other employees, I would be looking at replacing you as soon as possible, as you have now publicly stated that you feel anti-discrimination laws don't apply to you.

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't warez sites used to try stuff like this, like, say that if you work for the US government you do not have authorization to view the site? Didn't the tactic flop horribly?

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

People could post legal terms of service on their social networing pages declaring that employers and prospective employers are forbidden from looking at or copying from the pages.

If that ever occurred, I'd immediately start a company that scoured social networking pages like myspace and index the data so potential employers could search it without actually going onto the sites.

We could sell some ads in the margins to cover hardware and hosting costs. Since it would be searching a very large number of pages, I'd call it, oh, "tentothehundredthpower.com".

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[ultranova]

And there isn't a thing you can do about it. Think before you type.

Egads, you're right ! From now on, whenever I rave, I'll use your name to do it !

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xkcd.com/137/

Re:Legal terms to promote privacy

[atraintocry]

awesome, let's pass laws to control what people can and can't link to.

If you believe ...

[cdrguru]

If you believe you can have privacy, security and anonyminity you are wrong. You might get any two of those. Maybe.

If you main fear is the US government, think again. Your information is a marketable commodity and nobody is doiung anything to prevent commerce using that commodity. How many businesses are involved in trading information that you believe should be private? Do you believe the government should put an end to all such activity?

It isn't going to happen.

Re:If you believe ...

[falconwolf]

If you believe you can have privacy, security and anonyminity you are wrong. You might get any two of those. Maybe.

Privacy and anonymity are essentially the same thing. A USSC ruling even stated this in the early 1800s. If a person couldn't reasonable expect to keep their privacy then freedom of political speech didn't mean anything. Without remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them. I think the appropriate third word is "cheap" though "fast" is good too.

Falcon

Re:If you believe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

An attitude like that is dangerous and feeds into bad law making. Let's say technology matures and it is possible - do you see the government giving up its rights? In this particular case, the basis for the technology already exists - except it only benefits consumers, so there is little industrial support. Read up on the concepts of "electronic cash" (anonymous e-money) and "anonymous capability based security". Given this, the fact that internet providers do little to make clients anonymous and credit card companies don't support anonymous cards seems silly. I would pay an extra 5$ a month for such a credit card or internet provider, but then again, I think it should be required by law given that the technology exists. European legislation is moving in that direction - why are we always behind or moving backwards in the important things government-wise these days?

Re:If you believe ...

[nevillethedevil]

Without remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them.

Bingo! I'm sure that has already been considered by these asshats.

Re:If you believe ...

[falconwolf]

Without remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them.

Bingo! I'm sure that has already been considered by these asshats.

Yeap, I be someone has thought of that. I bet some have even thought an Enabling Act was needed.

Falcon

Google my pseudonym

[Dr. Eggman]

Google my pseudonym and anything written by me is obscured in a sea of fanfics, fanpics, and completly unrelated person's posting information. Type my real name into google and you'll find 3 entries relating to me: two of which are useful but could have been found before the Internet. Nothing has changed; only the speed of things have changed. If someone really wishes to find me, they would, but the majority of the information would come from offline. Preserving anonmity is still a keystone of the freedom of privacy; whether you choose to maintain it or not is you own business.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you don't know what specific "essential liberty" Franklin was referring to, do you?

That quote is Ben Franklin saying Quakers in Pennsylvania who "g[a]ve up [their] essential liberty" of BEARING ARMS paid for by the government against Indian and French raids during the French and Indian Wars (known in Europe, IIRC, as the "Seven Year War") deserved what they got: killed.

Your oh-so-fucking-precious quote is a small part of a diatribe against blind, stupid pacifism: those that give up their essential liberty of armed self-defense deserve what they get. You'd know that if you bothered to read the whole damn letter.

Quit taking it out of context.

Surveillance on U.S. soil

[sqrt(2)]

The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering. Of course it is! That's entirely the point. It's not supposed to be easy for the government to carry out espionage on its own soil. In the course of an investigation there will be a lot of information, records, conversations, and correspondence between the persons being investigated and regular citizens. When you do your espianage on American soil, the bystanders are AMERICAN CITIZENS, protected from being spied on. It should be very difficult for the government to do those types of activities. Just because the white house thinks they need a blank check to do what ever they want in the name of security doesn't mean we should give it to them.

Also, about googling your own name; I just did that and although there were over 1.5 million results, none of them were about me as far as I could tell :(
I guess I should be relieved, although I'm kind of disappointed that I'm not important enough to have my privacy violated.

Re:Surveillance on U.S. soil

[NonCow]

It's not supposed to be easy for the government to carry out espionage on its own soil. It's mildly disturbing, as one from outside the US, that you guys are so comfortable saying that. The corollary (sic?), which seems to so elude US commentators and be so obvious to the rest of us, is that it's just ticketty-boo for "the government to carry out espionage on someone else's soil."
Thanks heaps, oh defenders of the free world.
A Non Cow

Re:Surveillance on U.S. soil

[tromtone]

The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering. The law(s) against stealing were obstructing my money gathering. And, gathering money is the American dream, so I think we should get rid of those "money stealing laws" first, since Americans don't seem to value intelligence as much as money anyway.

Re:Surveillance on U.S. soil

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, about googling your own name; I just did that and although there were over 1.5 million results

Now try the same with your name enclosed in quotes. Big difference, isn't it?

Remember you can also google phone numbers for a name, and narrow searches in different ways, such as towns, newspapers and such. It helps a lot to be a personal acquaintance to know how to dig you up, but people feel more comfortable when I mention 0 results turned up than when I said serveral possible thousands are out there, with the chance of the REAL match being added at some point for the right person to look you up.

Most of my IT friend's names have less results to be found, but they match them.

Re:Surveillance on U.S. soil

[sqrt(2)]

I did the quotes, 22,700. I tried adding +my city, down to 15. None of those were me. I only have a cellphone, and searching that number came up with nothing. Same with my address. It looks like I'm not on the google.

Re:Surveillance on U.S. soil

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cool. Then you're like one more of my few intractable IT friends. I myself came up on a list of college students by major until removal about 3 years after I left.

Google currently shows me on a humble members-only Linked-IN job profile, a newspaper about being the top of my highschool class in my city, and a Dean's list for a second college.

Amazon.com once listed my name for google till I realized the need to remove that from my profile to reduce the signal to-noise-ratio. I see that employers will be pleased if they find my name in the above contexts. I also see a danger in using myspace and friendster: random friends will give out my carefully hidden names in ways I can't hide on my own.

Ignoring same-name matches, random "search noise" about who people are on the web can expose unimportant details or hurt your IT career / allow subtle stalking or crushes if people know where to look when you ARE googleable. Most people even in my IT place don't even know basic quotes usage, though. Otherwise, they just get thousands of results showing my name and last name for unrelated parties, but google did put most correct matches near the top of the gibberish "my" name hashes to.

He does have a point

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

A detailed search on google will reveal WAY too much info on people. Certainly more than you'd want released to just anyone.

More than this ... laws will not change this fact ... this sucks. If google can build databases of people le, why can't the US govt ? At least US govt has this freedom of info act. Google obeys only the laws they truly have to.

Outlawing google also seems like a stupid thing to do.

He just makes the point that we can't have it both ways. We can't have a searchable internet and the privacy standards of 1960. It just doesn't compute.

Re:He does have a point

[falconwolf]

Type my real name into google and you'll find 3 entries relating to me

Googling my name I get nothing. All 100 plus results are about others.

Falcon

Re:He does have a point

[shoemilk]

He would have a point if google could throw you in prison or declare you an enemy combatant and have you shipped of to a different company and tortured. But then again according to google for three years I was murdered in Tampa, FL

Re:He does have a point

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Stuff I could find :
Age 21
Single
You live in Missouri
(male, not that there was much doubt)

Your yahoo messenger address
Somewhat interested in buddhism it seems (though it's not a "real" intrest it seems)
A lot of messageboards you post at, and a lot of posts (save the wildlife, something about "natural health", gardener's corner, ...)

This post is also somewhat revealing "Years ago I was an amateur dancer, having taken some dance classes in college, danced in different dances, and worked on other dance performances. Several years ago I had a bad accident and the first thing I thought of for physical therapy was dance, so I talked with a friend who taught dance including the ones I took and she recommended I take ballet saying it would help with my coordination and endurance. As it was I didn't have the endurance to take the class. The last tyme I went to class, as usual, I stayed there after ballet and watched the Jazz class and I realized that while I could recall the steps for Jazz, I couldn't recall them for ballet, there would of been no way I would of had the energy for jazz. As for watching, like myself I've known others who feel so much better and/or motivated after watching a dance performance.

And no I wasn't an art or dance major, my major was computer engineering."

So how close am I ?

Re:He does have a point

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Ahem ... anyone can do that. Perhaps prison's not that easy, but torture and killing is easy. Just look up how many honor killings happen in USA these days. And those are totally unorganised muslims doing that. If a coordinated effort is made by google (with their money for example) how long do you think you'd survive ?

Every week a woman is killed by muslims in London ONLY for "disrespect". You're safe, but not *that* safe.

Re:He does have a point

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

*ahem* you're 44 according to your yahoo profile and perhaps missouri is not the most accurate of guesses

But still.

Re:He does have a point

[Charcharodon]

Actually you can have it both ways.

Having Google show you all kinds of things that link back to your identity is a very good thing. After I saw how accurately Google showed how many, and there were many, places my private information was bouncing around the net I was able to quickly pull the plug on every business and social site that was leaking my info.

Now when I do a search I find nothing about myself even after digging through 20 or 30 pages of Google search results.

Now why can't the US government just do a bunch of Google searches for data? Well that's because it's ilegal for them to compile or release information on US citizens outside the scope of the reason it was collected without your consent or without a court order.

Read the Privacy Act of 1974, it very specifically spells out what they can and can't do. One of those things they can't do is create computer data bases that let's them go on "fishing" trips by doing searches in public and private data bases without a court order. Which is exactly what they want to be able to do.

Re:He does have a point

[camperslo]

Google brings one set of privacy issues, but let's not forget good ole doubleclick.

I went to moderate a post a bit ago and discovered the script used when clicking on the moderating type was disabled because it had doubleclick in the path!
I won't claim to understand it all, but the long URL was loaded with details.
Being able to datamine moderation behaviour certainly goes way beyond gathering what's posted publicly.

Some may recall that doubleclick was sued by the state of Texas for stalking.
Others may recall a senior doubleclick officer being hired to the office of homeland security.
I doubt they hired him to wash floors.

Some people think of some ad-supported email services like Yahoo as being somewhat anonymous. Take a peek at what adblock shows and the datamining there is quite apparent too. AT&T/Yahoo calls the web-bugs Web Beacons instead. Isn't that special.
1 pixel transparent GIFs load from another server for the purpose of getting your IP, time of access, and other info they can pass through the URL.

This sort of routine invasive behaviour should be banned.

Re:He does have a point

[shoemilk]

So, because random murders happen I should give up my rights to the government?  See, the thing is, our government is here to protect me from the mass armies of Google Inc., not to tap my phone or keep a large database on my movements. I can easily lie to google, but I can't easily lie to Uncle Sam (and yes, I realize anonymity through obfuscation isn't true anonymity).
<br /><br />Crazy pshycos are everywhere. There's not much I can do about being tortured by one, but giving up my privacy to the government won't protect me from them. Also, if you would like any other response, please stop your racial profiling. There is no need to slur upon muslims three times in a seven senteced post. Many other non-muslims are crazy and torture and murder people.

Re:He does have a point

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Are muslims a race ? Anyone is muslim by choice.

That choice including accepting the following phrase as "God's truth" : "all infidel are less than filthy animals for they reject the truth" (quran 8:55). And this is the very tip of the iceberg.

Anyone who makes the choice to think this is a racist and I don't like him/her. Anyone who doesn't make this choice is not a muslim (as stated directly in that same quran 33:33 I believe). And I feel completely justified in doing so.

Besides I wonder why you're being racist. I state the exact same thing as the quran, I only replace "infidels" by "muslims". Why do you allow muslims to do what you refuse for me ? Why can't I call all muslims filthy animals when they get to do the reverse ?

Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[NeverVotedBush]

God, will it ever get here?

The Bush administration is systematically perverting the American Constitution.

I swear I would vote for anyone that said they would restore and enforce the Constitution, who would prosecute those who have subverted and raped it, and who would roll back the stoled powers of the Executive branch.

Even better, if they would turn the current system of campaign contributions by corporations into treasonous acts and punish all involved in the harshest possible manner.

We have the finest government money can buy. And that sucks.

Re:Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[zymurgy_cat]

I swear I would vote for anyone that said they would restore and enforce the Constitution, who would prosecute those who have subverted and raped it, and who would roll back the stoled powers of the Executive branch.

I don't really care for Ron Paul's politics on abortion (since I consider matters of reproduction an inalienable right), but I feel he's probably the only one who would remotely consider these actions. In fact, as a fairly liberal/libertarian person, he'd earn my vote in a heartbeat if he made prosecuting the guilty scumbags in the current administration his main campaign promise.

Re:Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[falconwolf]

I don't really care for Ron Paul's politics on abortion (since I consider matters of reproduction an inalienable right), but I feel he's probably the only one who would remotely consider these actions. In fact, as a fairly liberal/libertarian person, he'd earn my vote in a heartbeat if he made prosecuting the guilty scumbags in the current administration his main campaign promise.

Ron Paul's position on abortion is one I don't particularly like, as is his position on immigration. However he still comes the closest on most issues to my own position. I am registered No Party Preference now but when the primary comes around I will change it to Republican if I have to to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. 'course I'll change it right back afterwards.

Falcon

Re:Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[arminw]

........since I consider matters of reproduction an inalienable right).......

"Who gave you THAT right? The writers of the Declaration of Independence expressed therein that the Creator God is the originator of human rights. AFAIK, he takes a dim view of and has decreed the most harsh penalty for those who deliberately extinguish a human being.

Re:Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[Absimiliard]

Oh tchahh.

I call bullshit on your "AFAIK, he takes a dim view of and has decreed the most harsh penalty for those who deliberately extinguish a human being."

Show me where in your bible he defines a human being as a clump of non-sentient cells incapable of living outside the body of the mother.

-abs (who apologizes for going off-topic but this abortion thing just pisses me off)

Re:Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[arminw]

.....Show me where in your bible he defines a human being as a clump of non-sentient cells......

Read a section in Luke 1:41-44 for example. Look at Psalm 22:10, 127:3, 139:13, Isaiah 44:24, Jeremiah 1:5 for what God has to say.

Any pregnant woman will tell you that babies in the womb respond to sounds and other stimuli and even to the emotions of the mother.

It has always been standard procedure to declare a particular class of humans as something less than fully human, in order to rationalize the practice of treating them as inferior and/or doing away with them.

You accuse those of a different religion of treason for refusing to worship Caesar and feed them to the lions. You declare a human as property, because of a different skin color and make him/her a slave. You declare a certain group as 'Untermenschen' (subhuman) because of their nationality or ethnicity and gas them in concentration camps. You declare the elderly to be a burden on society, no longer "productive" and come up with ways to get them out of the way. As late as the third trimester, you declare the unborn as "tissue", crush their little heads and flush them down the drain.

You are pissed now, but God is surely and greatly pissed at the likes of you who advocate the murder of the helpless. He will have His final word to you on judgment day. (Matthew 25:41) You better ask Him for mercy, before it is too late for you forever.

Re:Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[SanGrail]

Biblical example:
Exodus 12:22
A fetus has value, but not the value of a living person.

Genetics example:
An embryonic stem cell, or the initial fertilized 'egg' is an undifferentiated mass of stem cells, that can develop into any part of the human body, but it is not a person.
It has the potential to become a person, but it also has the potential to just form say, a toenail.
It can be divided into two, three or more to produce identical twins, triplets, or even more people - at what point is this one or more people?
Even more interestingly - rarely, two separate eggs or masses of embryonic stem cells can fuse in the womb to form a single person, with two different genetic lines, even of different sexes (even less common, but causing some varieties of hermaphoditism). This is known as mosaicism, or sometimes even referred to human chimeras.
Neither embryo 'died', and yet a mosaic person is not 'two' people, but one. Therefore, embryos are not people.

So, if we know embryos are not people, and are not people for awhile, and yet babies are - then, they become people as they develop at some point between these two points, and we're back to arguing exactly when.

For comparison, Judaic thought holds an embryo to be as 'mere water' for the first 40 days, and after that, of value but still essentially part of the mother (of her thigh) and not-a-person until birth (when the head, or most of the body has exited).

From a biological standpoint, over 50% of fertilized eggs are lost or rejected before the end of the first trimester, most in the first month or so. After that, you have the earliest point at which a fetus begins to be viable (ie, low survival rate, and likely to have disabilities), where the existing life (mother) should take priority, through to the likelihood of the birth of a healthy infant, and so similar priority.

All in all, even better would be more of a priority on efficient methods to prevent conception in the first place. Both making them available, and developing new ones. There's got to be a better way. The current ones, while probably the greatest social breakthrough of the last 100 years, do kind of suck. :P

Re:Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[arminw]

.....and we're back to arguing exactly when......

As in many things, the why, the motive matters. Abortion done to preserve the life of the mother is quite different than when an abortion is done for selfish reasons. Most abortions, especially the late term ones are done for selfish reasons that have nothing to do with any danger to the life of the mother.

There are many questions we still have about the physical development of a human being. Neither medicine nor the Bible gives us a satisfying, clear answer as to exactly WHEN that mass of cells becomes a person, eligible to be protected as such. Both medicine and the Bible give clear indications that in the third trimester the life growing in the womb becomes quite aware of things inside and outside of the mother.

Any abortion that is done, other than to clearly protect the life of the mother, during that time, is definitely extinguishing the life of a person that has just as much right to life as you and I.

You must have written down the wrong Bible reference, as nothing germane to this appears in Exodus 12:22

Re:Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet?

[Absimiliard]

Still bullshit.

I read your passages. No where in them does your god mentions cells.

You're just interpreting what the book says to suit your already pre-existing theories. Much as I am interpreting them to not match my pre-existing theories. I see no difference between us yet, nor any evidence my interpretation is wrong and yours is right.

-abs

Barry

[pilsner.urquell]

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity.
-- Donald Kerr

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
-- Barry Goldwater

It's official - google is evil according to Gov't

[tomhudson]

"Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr."

Great! We should give Kerr a dose of his own medicine by posting about how "Donald Kerr likes having sex with a sheep", "Donald Kerr was arrested for soliciting sex in a public washroom", "Donald Kerr was indicted for embezzling $5 million dollars", "Donald Kerr was convicted of sexually assaulting an 82-year-old woman after tazering her", "Donald Kerr helped funnel funds to Al-Quaida", "Donald Kerr was found wandering naked in a local park, claiming to have been abducted by aliens, who then probed his body", "Donald Kerr is a vocal proponent of scientology", "Donald Kerr is president of the Washington Brittney Speares fan club", "Donald Kerr controls a bot-net of 250,000 PCs", "Donald Kerr accepted 'gifts' of $4.5m from Microsoft", "Donald Kerr wants to track people via bluetooth".

After all, Google is now a "good source" for Donald Kerr.

(Note to the humour-impaired - the above is fair comment satire directed at a public officials' political policy statements, and in no way is an endorsement of Mr. Kerr's positions on privacy OR sex with a sheep)

US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treason

[NeverVotedBush]

And the penalties for it.

The Bush administration has shit all over the Constitution and this country. They have committed treason.

Government having private data...

[gweihir]

Yes, there is something fundamentally different: After they take away your rights and screw you over, they can get themselves immunity. Private businesses generally cannot do that.

This guy is basically advertising a surveilance state, were everybody has to trust the government without reserve. Not a good idea. Historically that has always lead to a catastrophy. Unfortunately there will not be any allied armies to free the US population. I advise to stop this now with all possible legal means. A free society has to live with a real risk of terrorism. That is what makes it free: People have the freedom to go bad. If you remove that freedom, you cause much, much more damage that terrorists ever could do directly. All this "war on terror" is really a power-grap in disguise by power-hungry people without even a shred of ethics. You do not want to be ruled by this type of evil.

This man is a coward.

[postbigbang]

On the New Hampshire auto license plates reads one of my favorite sayings: Live Free, or Die. This man would rather capitulate, and is therefore lost.

We will struggle, those that believe in liberty and freedom, against the tides that would try to drown us with rationalisms, excuses, and the madness of fealty to the corrupt and mindless sycophants of government.

There was a reason the founding fathers worded their documents they way that they did-- there was another King George that tried to shove fealty down our throats. This minor duke in his administration would have us believe that liberty and freedom != anonymity. He is wrong.

Re:This man is a coward.

[KDR_11k]

On the New Hampshire auto license plates reads one of my favorite sayings: Live Free, or Die. This man would rather capitulate, and is therefore lost.

Given the choice of living in slavery or death, which do you think most people would choose? Do you really expect people to say "yes, kill me please"?

Someone who takes that saying serious would have to commit suicide before going to jail.

Re:This man is a coward.

[DarkOx]

Given the choice of living in slavery or death, which do you think most people would choose? Do you really expect people to say "yes, kill me please"? No we don't expect them to say "yes" I am sure the parent expects as I would that they make an attempt to at the very least escape, and idealy attempt to destroy their opressors, even if these actions will get them killed.

As to the suicide over jail thing that depends, If I was looking at a REAL life sentance like not getting out ever not in fifteen years never, then yea I would probably not allow myself to be taken alive, but I would not kill myself either. I would put society in the position of doing it so they have to live with it. Maybe it would be justifed, maybe everyone will sleep soundly that night, maybe not.

Re:This man is a coward.

[KTheorem]

Not saying I totally agree with this but there is some logic to the idea that if you would rather live in slavery than die, you are, at least in some small way, okay with the idea of being owned.

Re:This man is a coward.

[postbigbang]

Today is November 11, the traditional Veteran's Day. Let me tell you of my ancestors, who didn't capitulate, and were POWs, were killed, shot down over Europe or the Pacific; these ancestors understanood what they were fighting for- going all the way back to 1779 in Pennsylvania, fighting Tories. Or let me tell you about the regiments that went south of the Ohio to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps my late grandfather, who was an adjutant in WWI could've told you about liberty, or an uncle that went to Europe in WWII, despite his debilitating polio. Or an other uncle that had most of his stomach blown away with ack-ack flak. Both of them savor(ed) their liberty, and both were willing to without hesitation, and die for it. Another uncle did.

Let me tell you about the other heros that also protested the Viet Nam War for the travesty it had become as others were conscripted (and enslaved) to fight. Or perhaps those that looked with incredulity at the hoaxed evidence of 'WMD' in Iraq-- knowing that many thousands of soldier lives would be lost in vain, not to mention Afgani and Iraqi lives-- and the lives of US allies.

Let me tell you about having principles, not a squishy bowl of jelly for guts in the face of those that would compromise liberty, civil rights, and freedom with responsibility for these.

Many people have, and will understand the value of liberty, once lost. Should you wish subjugation, sit still and don't do anything.

Re:This man is a coward.

[falconwolf]

Given the choice of living in slavery or death, which do you think most people would choose? Do you really expect people to say "yes, kill me please"?

There's another choice, you can fight for freedom. You may die but you can take some oppressors out with you. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." However as with past civilizations, people have become lazy and fearful.

Falcon

Re:This man is a coward.

[arth1]

On the New Hampshire auto license plates reads one of my favorite sayings: Live Free, or Die.

When push comes to shove, it turns out that while most Newhampsters believe in "live free", they don't believe in "or die". The number of NH martyrs for freedom is extremely low, unless you define "freedom" as "foreign oil".

Re:This man is a coward.

[Sebastopol]

Noble words that are supposed to silence the rabble rousers who dare speak the truth. The parent was for the most part correct, and you responded not with logic, but with trumped up anecdote.

You have disgraced your ancestors. By your logic, the black slaves that built america were cowards? Because they didn't live free?

But I don't need to use extremes to make my point. Look at how far society has bent already, and you can see how easy it is to subjugate the masses. Many people would rather become slaves at the point of a gun. Many people fantasize about rebelling against the rogue government come to take away their rights, but it will not be a soldier at your door with a gun, it will be a PATRIOT act. No, the fantasy you dream of will never come to pass, the complacent society will let the water gently go from warm to boil without blinking an eye. And you dare revolt? Perhaps you are armed to the teeth like the 2nd amendment claims to allow, but unless you have nukes, you have no chance against the might of the US government.

But go ahead and pretend all you want if it makes you feel better.

Re:This man is a coward.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

Re:This man is a coward.

[kcbrown]

There's another choice, you can fight for freedom. You may die but you can take some oppressors out with you. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." However as with past civilizations, people have become lazy and fearful.

Fight how?

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his passage about refreshing the tree of liberty, the firepower of the average civilian was about the same as the firepower of the average soldier. That meant a large enough number of average people could actually kick out an occupying force if they really wanted to.

Fast forward to today. Today, the firepower of the average soldier is anywhere between a few thousand to one and a few million to one in favor of the soldier, depending on what weapons you decide the soldier has available to him. Give him nuclear weapons and it's millions to one. Meaning that the military would be able to kill anywhere from thousands to millions of civilians while losing just one soldier.

You don't think a malevolent totalitarian government would hesitate to nuke one of its own cities to demonstrate its power and resolve? If you don't think that then you don't understand such governments. No, I don't think it would ever even come close to that -- the resistance would remain a nuisance, much like it is in Iraq, but nothing more.

Yes, you heard that right: the resistance in Iraq is a nuisance. It's not a real threat. How do I know? Simple: we're still there, and we're not budging, and any inclination on our part to leave would come as a result of us wanting to leave, not being forced to leave.

So what does this mean? Simple: during Thomas Jefferson's time, "give me liberty or give me death" could mean either liberty or death -- you had a reasonable chance of either if you fought for liberty. But today, "give me liberty or give me death" simplifies to merely "give me death".

So: if someone knew for a fact that if they tried to fight for freedom, they would not only die but they would also fail, do you still believe that person would fight nonetheless, knowing that it would do absolutely no good at all? Some would, I think, but very few. And I'll tell you why:

Because there's always a chance you might somehow be able to change things as long as you're alive. Once you're dead, there's no chance at all.

This ain't the 1700's anymore. It's time people stopped thinking as if it were.

Re:This man is a coward.

[falconwolf]

Fast forward to today. Today, the firepower of the average soldier is anywhere between a few thousand to one and a few million to one in favor of the soldier, depending on what weapons you decide the soldier has available to him. Give him nuclear weapons and it's millions to one. Meaning that the military would be able to kill anywhere from thousands to millions of civilians while losing just one soldier.

And what are the possibilities a US soldier will fire on US citizens? One or two may but I bet many more would desert if not aid civilians. Heck China couldn't even get some Red Army units to shoot protesters during the protests at Tiananmen Square. Chinese leaders had to call in army units from other places because the local units refused to fire on their own people. Here's an article from the New York times dated 8 June 1989 saying about one army unit that was believed to be planning to attack another unit:

"On Tuesday, residents in the western part of the city cheered convoys of troops who said they were members of the 38th Army, widely believed to be planning attacks against the forces in the 27th Army, the one responsible for most of the bloodshed. The citizens even dismantled some of their barricades on the Avenue of Eternal Peace, so that the 38th Army vehicles could proceed more rapidly to the center of the city and attack the 27th. 'Can't Figure It Out"

Another NYT article, TURMOIL IN CHINA; Legions of Soldiers Encircling Beijing: Loyalty to Whom? questions the loyalty of some Red Army units. If China can't count on army units to shoot on civilians what would make anyone think US Army units would fire on US civilians, on a scale far larger than the Kent State Massacre? I know when I was I the US Army I and others in my unit would of been among those who protected civilians. No, anyone expecting the US military to shoot on US citizens demonstrating on a massive scale would learn otherwise if they were to give the orders.

Yes, you heard that right: the resistance in Iraq is a nuisance. It's not a real threat. How do I know? Simple: we're still there, and we're not budging, and any inclination on our part to leave would come as a result of us wanting to leave, not being forced to leave.

As states above what makes you think you could get away with ordering the US Military to fire on US citizens? If I had been ordered to fire on US civilians by a commanding officer I'd have been more likely to shoot the officer. I have a nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq now and I bet he wouldn't follow such an order either.

Falcon

Re:This man is a coward.

[kcbrown]

Chinese leaders had to call in army units from other places because the local units refused to fire on their own people.

What makes you think that leaders in the U.S. will do any different? And what makes you think U.S. soldiers are any different from Chinese soldiers in this regard?

Throughout history, soldiers have shown their willingness to kill their own countrymen in order to "keep the peace" and, especially, to protect those in power. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that U.S. soldiers are somehow "special" and magically exempt from this.

Regardless, I'm not talking about demonstrations on the part of civilians or anything like that. That kind of thing will be handled by the local and federal police forces. No, I'm talking about civilians attempting to overthrow the government by force. What do you think a revolution is, anyway? Do you really think you and your fellow soliders will be allowed to just stand by and watch it happen? No. You'll be ordered to engage, and you'll do it, too, because you'll believe it to be "defending the country", when in reality you'll just be defending the people currently in power. You'll believe the revolutionaries are just a bunch of crazy nutjobs because that's what your chain of command tells you (based on their "intelligence") and what the mass media tells you.

If civilians started pointing guns at you, I dare say you wouldn't hesitate to point yours back at them. And if they started firing at you, I would bet good money that you'd fire back in self defense if nothing else, and the only reason you wouldn't is if the civilians didn't pose a credible threat to the safety of your or your fellow soldiers. Until that point, you wouldn't necessarily be asked by your chain of command to actively fire upon civilians. But you wouldn't allow those armed civilians to detain your leadership, either, would you? And yet, that's what their mission would be, and they'd be determined to accomplish it by force if necessary. That's what an armed revolution is.

One more thing: revolutions never happen as a result of the population as a whole rising up, at least that I know of. The percentage of the population that becomes actively engaged in combat varies, to be sure, but I expect it's generally relatively low. For instance, during the American Revolution, about 10% of the colonial population engaged in combat (I can't seem to find the source for that anymore, however).

I rather doubt that members of the U.S. military would have much of a problem firing on a group of armed civilians bent on overthrowing the government.

You're taking precisely the wrong lesson away from Kent State and Tianenman Square. The proper lesson is that they illustrate just how low the threshold really is before military forces will start firing on civilians. If military forces would even consider firing on civilians in those situations, it's pretty much guaranteed that they'll fire without hesitation on a group of armed civilians intent on overthrowing the government. Such a group of armed civilians by their very intent automatically becomes "the enemy".

Re:This man is a coward.

[Carewolf]

Firepower, bullshit. This is what you get from being brainwashed about the US supremacy and how investing in military tech is going to make you invincible. Take a look at Vietnam, take a look at Iraq.

There is one fundamental rule in warfare, and it is still unchanged: If the enemy outnumbers you more than 2 to 1 you automatically lose. This is still true, but it requires the 2 to actually agree on fighting the one, even though one is going to die in the process.

Re:This man is a coward.

[falconwolf]

Chinese leaders had to call in army units from other places because the local units refused to fire on their own people.

What makes you think that leaders in the U.S. will do any different? And what makes you think U.S. soldiers are any different from Chinese soldiers in this regard?

Because there's a big difference in the Chinese army and the US's army. members of the US armed forces can, and are, from all over the US. In my unit I had people from different states and different ethnic groups, even different religions. In China however things were different when the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square happened. China has at least 56 different ethnic groups and back then army units didn't mix different groups much in individual units. The unit a person was in was typically stationed in the area where the person was from. The army unit that refused to put down the demonstrations was from Beijing, where Tianamen Square is, and was made up of Hui people who are native to Beijing. So the government had to bring in an army unit that wasn't Hui.

Throughout history, soldiers have shown their willingness to kill their own countrymen in order to "keep the peace" and, especially, to protect those in power. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that U.S. soldiers are somehow "special" and magically exempt from this.

Have you ever been in the military? I have and there were a number of people who would have refused to shoot onto US citizens, me being one of them.

No, I'm talking about civilians attempting to overthrow the government by force. What do you think a revolution is, anyway? Do you really think you and your fellow soliders will be allowed to just stand by and watch it happen?

Just as Germans in the German military tried to assassinate Hilter during WWII there are people in the US military who would fight against unlawful or unconstitutional orders. And we wouldn't have just stood by and waited to be shot, instead we would of been shooting ourselves. During Viet Nam soldiers would Frag, assassinate, officers and others when a bad order, or one that ended in needless deaths, was given.

If civilians started pointing guns at you, I dare say you wouldn't hesitate to point yours back at them

Go ahead and dare, I know I wouldn't shoot, I'd desert or frag an officer that gave an order for me to shoot civilians. I can't go on with this seeing as how you're making things up.

Falcon

Re:This man is a coward.

[kcbrown]

Go ahead and dare, I know I wouldn't shoot, I'd desert or frag an officer that gave an order for me to shoot civilians. I can't go on with this seeing as how you're making things up.

So you'd stand by while said armed civilians captured the President of the United States and members of Congress? I'm skeptical of that, but only you can speak for you. :-)

If most soldiers are as you are then there's hope indeed. I hope to God that's the case, but history is not on your side. Want a perfect example? The American Civil War. Americans shooting Americans. Did the people in the U.S. military back then take an oath to uphold the Constitution any different from what you took? Were their views really any different than yours and those of your fellow soldiers? I honestly don't know the answers to that. Perhaps you do.

Re:This man is a coward.

[kcbrown]

Firepower, bullshit. This is what you get from being brainwashed about the US supremacy and how investing in military tech is going to make you invincible. Take a look at Vietnam, take a look at Iraq.

Yes, let's take a look at them.

In Vietnam, we impeded our own forces for political reasons. We weren't allowed by our politicians to take the fight to the enemy, and so we didn't. Our armed forces weren't allowed to destroy the enemy at its source, so we didn't. We ultimately withdrew, not because we were being defeated, but because our civilian population had had enough. In other words, Vietnam was not a military defeat of the U.S. forces. There was considerable resistance, to be sure, and it did cost us, but we "lost" only because while we were there, our military wasn't allowed to take the gloves off and because we ultimately left for political reasons. Vietnam was not a military defeat.

In Iraq, we slaughtered the enemy forces. They hardly stood a chance. We're there right now, and if anything, the only reason we're having any problems at all is that we're having to exercise restraint that I guarantee wouldn't be exercised in the case of a home-grown armed insurrection here in the U.S. When the government's very existence is on the line, there's no reason to believe it would hold anything back. In the meantime, like I said before, Iraq is a perfect example of how difficult a time an armed civilian revolution would have it: despite all the efforts of the members of the insurrection over there, we're still there, we're not going away, and if we go away it'll be because we want to leave, not because of any military defeat. And all that is despite the fact that their military forces outnumbered ours by roughly 2 to 1 (if not more).

There is one fundamental rule in warfare, and it is still unchanged: If the enemy outnumbers you more than 2 to 1 you automatically lose.

I see. Well, let's make an extreme example to show how absurd this is. I have an army of ten thousand men armed with all the modern weaponry our armed forces have available to them. You have an army of ten million armed with spears, and your job is to kick me out. Who do you think is going to win? The answer is obvious: I will. Your army will never even get close to any of my bases of operation. The technology at my disposal will enable me to see you coming night and day, to track your movements wherever you are, and allow me to destroy you from afar without you even getting within visual range of me.

You're an idiot if you believe military technology doesn't matter. It matters a great deal. The Iraqi military forces did outnumber ours 2 to 1, but we easily took the country anyway, with hardly any casualties on our side. Do you really think we could have accomplished that without the military hardware we have at our command?

It would be stupid of me to claim that our military technology makes us invincible against an enemy of roughly equivalent technological capability. But against an enemy of significantly less technological capability, it has a significant effect on the odds, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise. And history has proven this repeatedly.

Re:This man is a coward.

[entropiccanuck]

This came up a bit ago (10/31) on the Colbert show. Colbert showed a clip of Mitt Romney, who's running for the Republican presidential nomination:
Romney: "I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about.' But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."
Colbert's response: "That speech will play great in New Hampshire, what with their state motto, 'Live Free or Do Whatever It Takes So I Don't Die,'"

Re:This man is a coward.

[Carewolf]

Spears? Right... You not only stupid, but arrogant stupid. This stupid arrogance is why you lose every war you fight these days.

In even the most backwaters jungle you are going to be met with a resistance that as a minimum has improved WW2 arms like the AK-47, and likely several guided missiles as well, bought on the black-market e-bay. Not to mention abundant amounts of self-manufactured high-explosives.

And the political interventions are part of the game, it doesn't excuse your defeats. They explain why they happened, and why they are going to happen again and again. This is not going to change.

Lastly if I had 10 million men, I wouldn't take them to you, I would completely ignore you, and if you invaded I would gun you down in the world's biggest ambush. War isn't not just about winning, it's about getting ahead, and if it costs you more to invade than you gain, then invading would be a bad move. This is the true lesson about Vietnam and Iraq, you gained much less than you lost. Investing more might make you be able to win, but it would make the cost sky-rocket and make the adventure even less profitable and thus even more stupid.

Re:This man is a coward.

[kcbrown]

Spears? Right... You not only stupid, but arrogant stupid. This stupid arrogance is why you lose every war you fight these days.

If you don't understand the difference between a military defeat and a politically-motivated withdrawal, then you won't ever understand what makes winning an armed revolution against a well-equipped government so difficult.

And the political interventions are part of the game, it doesn't excuse your defeats. They explain why they happened, and why they are going to happen again and again. This is not going to change.

The political interventions are part of the game, but they are also part of the context. That context is very important. The political motivations behind a government's withdrawal from a foreign land do not apply to its defense against an armed revolution. Against an armed revolution, the government is fighting for its existence. That would be like you fighting for your life. If you don't see the difference between you leaving someone else's house after they make things annoyingly unpleasant for you and you losing your life in your own home, then you will never understand where I'm coming from.

War isn't not just about winning, it's about getting ahead,

Oh, yes, I'm sure that's of great comfort to every soldier that found themselves on the losing side of a war despite winning a whole pile of battles.

Don't be absurd. You can "get ahead" in war all you want, but if that doesn't ultimately result in victory then all those "gains" are worthless.

War is ultimately only about winning. "Winning" can mean many things, obviously, but winning is the objective of war. Learning that lesson from Vietnam is precisely why the U.S. forces walked all over the Iraqis in both Gulf wars.

Investing more might make you be able to win, but it would make the cost sky-rocket and make the adventure even less profitable and thus even more stupid.

Well, that depends, doesn't it? If winning is the only way to survive (or to remain in power, or whatever), then you're better off eating the sky-high costs of investing more than you are by not doing so, right?

But oddly enough, your statement can ultimately be used against you. After all, the cost to the revolutionaries of attempting to overthrow a well-armed sitting government would be extremely high. By your own statement, that would make the attempt at revolution a stupid move.

Bet that's not exactly what you expected the consequences of your statement to be. :-D

Re:first fisting post!

[NeverVotedBush]

Actually, any stories posted on /. that tend to expose the current administration for what it is tend to get these kinds of posts. Me thinks the Bush administration is watching and trying to prevent people from discussing their treason.

Here's an example of Kerr's logic

[schwaang]

FTA:

Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that he finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are ``perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service provider) who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data.''

Really, I don't need to read beyond this. Does the US have a privacy problem with personal data held by corporations without regulation? Yes. Does the US have a privacy problem with novel government surveillance methods without (serious) oversight? Hell Yes. Can one be used to excuse the other in any way shape or form? Hell no!

This guy should not be the standard bearer for the dialog that the US needs to have over privacy in the age of information technology.

Re:Here's an example of Kerr's logic

[Shihar]

Really, I don't need to read beyond this. Does the US have a privacy problem with personal data held by corporations without regulation? Yes. Does the US have a privacy problem with novel government surveillance methods without (serious) oversight? Hell Yes. Can one be used to excuse the other in any way shape or form? Hell no! It is worse than that. I don't like private companies to have piles of information on me. I don't like telemarketing spam. That said, what a private corporation can do with my personal information is a whole lot less than what the government can do. So Google knows what sort of pr0n I like and that I am looking for a job in another industry. Great. They can target ads for asian midget preggo lesbian white sock fetish porn at me while serving up ads for opening as a toll booth collector.

The government on the other hand can do far worse to me. The government can realize that I am a fan of a radical centrist group and start keeping tabs on my every move. While they can't prove that I have done anything wrong in terms of being a radical terrorist, they can easily keep track of the laws I break and hit me all at once for them. As they track my GPS they can dish out a fine each time I touch above the speed limit, charge me the full $250,000 per son each time I let a friend borrow a CD, castrate me for drinking on the sabbath, toss me in jail for illegal drug possession when I pop one of my girlfriends anti-allergy pills, and in general make my life a miserable hell.

Re:Here's an example of Kerr's logic

[columbus]

"perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service provider) who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data."

No one else seems to have caught this, so I thought I'd pipe up. According to US immigration law, if you are an illegal entrant into the US, you will never be eligible for a green card. If you were an illegal entrant and you have a green card, it means the immigration people made a MISTAKE with your data.

Who are the immigration people? The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services who were until recently the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is a subsection of the Department of Homeland Security.

So, Donald Kerr is arguing - "We're the security aparatus of the government - just trust us." But in the same breath he is confirming his belief that "The security aparatus of the government makes mistakes and cannot be trusted to handle people's data."

PS. There is a fringe case in which the statement tha Donald Kerr made is accurate. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 contained the most recent amnesty for illegal entrants. Amnesty was granted to people who entered illegally before 1982 and lived and worked continuously in the US between 1982 & 1986. If this is what he meant than the segment of the population he refers to for with his 'Illegal Entrant' statement, than the segment of people are 'those who illegally entered the US over 25 years ago, lived & worked in the US continually between 1982 & 1986 , took advantage of an INS amnesty, later applied and were granted green cards, probably renewed their green cards once or twice (because they expire after 10 years) an have not yet gone through the process to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, but are still (or again) living in the US and are currently employed at an Internet Service Provider'. That is a really really really small segment of the population. So why would he bring it up? It's the big red herring. These days you can get away with anything in the federal government by pointing the finger of blame at immigrants and foreigners.

Re:Here's an example of Kerr's logic

[schwaang]

Interesting details, but this is ultimately a red herring.

There exist today situations in which commercially-held personal private data is accessible to non-US employees in, e.g., India.
And there are no doubt situations in which commercially-held personal private data is accessible to US Citizens who have criminal histories that haven't been vetted by the ISP.

But the fact that we have unresolved problems with privacy in the commercial world should in no way serve as examples for what the US Gov't should be allowed to do with personal private data. It's a totally separate standard and with good reason, as lots of folks here have described.

Re:Here's an example of Kerr's logic

[columbus]

OK, I'll admit that the immigration question is a little bit of a diversion from the privacy question. I married a foreign national and I learned through painful firsthand experience what the immigration process is like. When people gloss over the details of this process, get their facts wrong and draw improper conclusions, it makes my blood boil.

On the other hand, the bush administration has confused the privacy question with the immigration question by rolling the agencies that would oversee these subjects into one: the Department of Homeland Security.

Also, it is within Kerr's purview to advise the president on matters related to the Department of Homeland Security which includes the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Hence it is his responsibility to be informed about the immigration issue (which only affects millions of Americans & foreign nationals living in America and only sees press coverage every day).

The point I am making is that this man does not know his own business. He is not competent and should not be trusted to re-engineer the balance of power between the People and the State.

...and?

[jo42]

If I change my name to "John Doe"?

Re:...and?

[NeverVotedBush]

Not such a good idea because there aren't that many John Doe's. Go for John Smith. Or now, maybe you should change your name to Mohammed Al-Mohammed. Or Juan Sanchez. Or Unique Williams. Or possibly best of all -- Lee Chin.

Re:...and?

[smallfries]

Not such a good idea because there aren't that many John Doe's

Ahh, all the good ones die young

Re:...and?

[Grandiloquence]

If you use Lee Chin, the authorities will think you're a pirate who doesn't upload enough.

security?

[rev_sanchez]

Bad terrorists kill thousands. Bad government kill millions. Their fear mongering and our cowardice are poisoning our nation's leadership.

Firefox add-on

[Janos421]

For those of you who want to protect their privacy, I've made a light Firefox add-on which generates randomly some queries on Google to make your search profile noisier and less exploitable. The queries keywords are extracted from RSS flows so you can personalize them. Moreover, the program simulates some clicks on Google search results (and ads).
For further information go on: http://sourceforge.net/projects/fuzzy-search/
It's a beta version and any comments are appreciated.

Re:Firefox add-on

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

TrackMeNot

Re:Firefox add-on

[Kev Vance]

This is a neat idea, but you should check google's terms of service. In particular, the part where you "specifically agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services through any automated means". I don't know how well they could detect this, but you're definitely in a gray area.

Re:Firefox add-on

[DaleGlass]

Have you seen Bruce Schneier's opinion on your plugin?

If your plugin still works as described, then I'd say it's very imperfect. I don't think the approach is completely wrong though, but it could use improvements.

This reminds me of the old idea of randomly embedding key words like "president", "nuke", etc in mail and usenet posts, to mess with with Echelon/Carnivore. A mail with random key words inserted in places would work for triggering the data gathering, but look obviously unrelated to a human who reads the message, as the extra stuff would be inserted in nonsensical places.

Now if your plugin happens to google for "raping virgins" how will you prove this wasn't a real search you tried to hide among a heap of a lot of grammatically incorrect ones? Searches that make grammatical sense will be a minority, and with a list like that there's a high chance that they won't be things normal people google about.

Then there's that it doesn't seem it actually follows any links from the searches, so if the ISP is doing logging it's easy enough to tell what is being actually used.

This seems to me like going to a library, and borrowing 20 books at once, including the Anarchist Cookbook and Mein Kampf, to try hide your actual and much more harmless interest in reading a book on say, Neopaganism. If your history is checked, all that extra stuff you didn't read isn't going to help you any, because there's no way to tell that most of your history was intended to be padding and you haven't even opened it.

Re:Firefox add-on

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere in the basement of an ordinary-looking building, the records ("DaleGlass", "raping virgins"), ("DaleGlass", "Anarchist Cookbook"), and ("DaleGlass", "Mein Kampf") are inserted into an NSA database...

Re:Firefox add-on

[Anonymous Coward]

And tell me, these random searches and clicks made by your plugin; are the biased to childporn and terrorist activities?
I think without filtering it is a dangerous tool in the "free" US of A.

Re:Firefox add-on

[Janos421]

Well my plug-in is not TrackMeNot. Actually TrackMeNot generates queries from search engine statistics, while I generate queries using words extracted from user RSS flows.
The generated queries depend on the RSS flows you selected; so I don't think the queries "raping virgins" will be generated. If they are, it's because it's related to news. So it depends on RSS flows you pick up. The default profile corresponds to me and the queries I generated are not perfect but I could have make most of them.
In the last version, I added a log, so you can directly see what queries are generated.
Basically, if you import your own OPML file and then edit it, I think the queries will correspond to your profile. So the "noise" will depend on how you edit your profile.
Ideally I'd like to let users modify the regexp used to extract key words to provide more realistic results.

Re:Firefox add-on

[Janos421]

Well my plug-in is not TrackMeNot (actually it's named SuigglesSR).I'm aiming to simulate accurately a search engine user behaviour, that's why I use RSS flows, I think it's more representative of our interest, and you can modify your OPML file to simulate fake interests (noisier profile).

I add a log visualisation, so you can see in SquiggleSR preferences the generated queries and the clicked results. The results are not too bad now, queries are quite realistic.

Are the search engines able to detect it? I think it depends on the number of queries issued by Squiggle, but till now I have no problem with my Google account. The think is that the pattern is strongly dependant on the RSS flows so it's quite hard to detect it.

But if we are able to simulate real user behaviours with clicks, it's clearly a threat to the "pay per click" model. However Google is aiming to make us react like automates to personalized ads...thus an automate could act like us.

Now they will use other data provided by Android, Youtube and co to detect our interest...
When you think about it, Google and Microsoft beating for health files, knowing that the highest bid for pay per click is "mesothelioma" (a cancer), this clearly points out that our privacy and their interest are conflicting.

The US is not the entire planet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, let Americans do as they please. It won't change the rest of the planet one bit. If America's biggest enemy comes from within, then this should work out quite well for them.

But as with all notions about regulating the net with laws this really seems to overlook the fact that passing a law in the United States in an effort to control the internet is absurd unless the US plans to also close down its links to the rest of the net at the same time. Obviously that's not the case, so this kind of thing only works to screw with American citizens and accomplishes nothing of significance.

Re:The US is not the entire planet.

[NeverVotedBush]

"so this kind of thing only works to screw with American citizens and accomplishes nothing of significance"

And this is news? America's biggest enemy is definitely within. It is lack of education and an easily terrified populace that can be manipulated with a few "support our troops" and "with us or agin' us" slogans.

I think Osama bin Laden hit the jackpot with his 9/11 attack. He spent some 19 lives and a few tens of thousands of dollars and in return, he, through the current moronic, paranoid, and opportunistic administration, has thoroughly destroyed what used to be the most powerful and respected Nation on earth.

Re:The US is not the entire planet.

[NeverVotedBush]

The only "inside-job" aspect of 9/11 was that despite repeated warnings and even a CIA briefing for George Bush on how Osama bin Laden was planning attacks on US targets such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, using airliners as flying bombs, the idiot did nothing. Look for the video of Condoleeza Rice admitting that the written versions of the briefing were sitting on her desk, unopened, until after 9/11. It's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7fQcQdMoxo

His reaction at that school, while reading "My Pet Goat" to the kiddies, after Andrew Card told him the United States was under attack was priceless. He was frozen in fear. He sat there scared shitless and not knowing what to do. It is a famous video. He finally had to be escorted out. Somewhere in that alcohol-damaged brain of his, he knew that he could have stopped it if he wasn't so damn busy partying at the Crawford ranch. That little gem is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI -- His famous seven minutes of silence. He's lucky he didn't have urine dripping down his leg caught on video.

It was not an inside job though it might as well have been. It was Bush administration incompetence. Complete, total, and utter incompetence, that led to 9/11. He and his "posse" were too busy partying, bar-b-q'ing, and liquoring up the Saudis. The most vacationing presidenter, EVER. 9/11 was Bush's fault. But he didn't do it.

Re:The US is not the entire planet.

[tom's a-cold]

I think Osama bin Laden hit the jackpot with his 9/11 attack.

It's like some auto-immune diesase. Some small trigger and the body's defenses react so excessively and inappropriately that it ends up consuming itself. Except that the Bush administration is more like a parasite than part of the body's defenses.

Re:The US is not the entire planet.

[jackbird]

Speaking as someone whose in-laws live about 3 blocks from where that Airbus that lost its tail on takeoff from JFK went down, I can assure you that it is truly astonishing how little is left when a large plane crashes, and how small the devastation on the ground can be. Unless you think that was staged too.

Re:The US is not the entire planet.

[gweihir]

The answer to "with you or against you" is simple: Against you. No decent person makes such a demand. It in itself points to someone unrefined, that does not understand moral, or the rights of other to choose.

Fortunately that statement was mainly from some unrefined, primitive stooge. Most of the world understands that. But personally, if I were a head of a neutral gouvernment, this would have caused me to send a "flash" level inquery whether this was a declaration of war. It is a pity that the quality of "statesmen" has sunk so low, they can get away with this kind of stupidity and insult to a major part of the world.

Re:The US is not the entire planet.

[scubamage]

Other "conspiracy nut" factoids:
-For the few weeks prior to the event workers at the WTC claim that they saw an increased number of goverment agents in the building, including a massive surge of security near the basement levels of the buildings.
-Forensic architects and demolitions experts found traces of thermite, attributing to how the steel lost its structural integrity. Thermite is not contained in planes, it is placed in demolition charges.
-The "official" story of how the buildings fell (plane impact, ignited jet fuel) cannot be recreated in a lab. However a thermite demolition can recreate how the buildings fell exactly.
-The head of security for the WTC was a relative of George Bush.
-Within 48 hours of the event a massive order for arms production and body bags was placed in companies owned by the Carlisle Group, a company in which the Bush family had substantial stakes in. The Bin Laden family were also investors.
Need we go on?

Apologies to Emily Dickinson

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us - don't tell!
They'd waterboard us, you know.

Re:Apologies to Emily Dickinson

[arminw]

.....I'm nobody!.....

No you're not! EVERYBODY has an important job to do in life. However, EVERYBODY is always wanting SOMEBODY else do it. ANYBODY could do it, but NOBODY did. SOMEBODY got very angry about it, because it was EVERYBODY'S job. EVERYBODY thought that ANYBODY could do it, but NOBODY realized that EVERYBODY would not do it. Thus it ended up that EVERYBODY blamed SOMEBODY, when NOBODY did what ANYBODY could have done.

Re:Apologies to Emily Dickinson

[iminplaya]

Il Mio Nome è Nessuno

I agree with Kerr

[foniksonik]

The EFF is wrong. There is no difference because they are one and the same, meaning that the Government does provide us with services, in fact it is their only job to provide us with services... that's why we pay taxes and elect officials.

If we want to protect our privacy in the new age of information, we must have policies in place which reflect the real world, not a fantasy world where you can be an anonymous citizen (which is impossible BTW) who simply goes about his/her business without interference from some agency or another. Just being a U.S. citizen guarantees gov interference in your life... it's part of the social agreement we all participate in and some people don't even think of it as interference or intervention.... they think of it as guidance, assistance and public service.

Non-participation in elections, public functions and other types of government activities does not absolve you as a citizen from being accountable or from the limitations or responsibilities of being a citizen. You simply don't gain the benefits of active involvement and yet still bear the burden.

So rather than ignore reality, we should embrace it. We should make sure that despite the government knowing about our personal and private activities... they can not stop safe and sane activities only regulate abusive versions of such where they begin to impede on others right to such things. I'd go so far as to say we should repeal many laws which govern personal liberty and at the same time enhance penalties for behaviors which impede upon others liberties. What I'm talking about is removing laws about DOING drugs and making more strict laws about ABUSING drugs or acting out while on drugs ie: violent behavior, negligent behavior, etc. The same should be done regarding things like decency laws, laws related to sexual behavior (stop prohibition on sex for hire and start regulating it so it is safe for the public)....

This type of limited regulation of course has been impossible up until now... better to ban it completely when we don't really know and can't find out who is abusing what... but now we have the ability to monitor without interfering unless and until it is necessary to regulate an abusive situation. As long as such monitoring is open and transparent to the public as well as the government no one agency (in the general sense) can over-regulate or abuse the use of the information without several other agencies checking and balancing them.

There's nothing more free than the truth. If everyone knows what everyone is doing and becomes accustomed to it then everyone can freely do as they will without fear of punitive judgement, as long as they don't break any laws... which is another discussion (see recommendations above).

Re:I agree with Kerr

[0123456]

"If everyone knows what everyone is doing and becomes accustomed to it then everyone can freely do as they will without fear of punitive judgement, as long as they don't break any laws... which is another discussion (see recommendations above)."

Indeed. Jews in Nazi Germany in the 30s were free to do what they wanted without fear, so long as they didn't break any laws.

Of course walking around with a Star of David on your clothes kind of sucked later on when being a Jew became a capital offence.

Re:I agree with Kerr

[Intrinsic]

fact it is their only job to provide us with services...

Actually the role of Government is to protect our individual rights as human citizens, and only that. The role government is playing now is hugely out of balance with the American publics ideals. It will only change when we stand up and demand it works our way, not the ways of mass corporations that are partnered with our government to provide services to us at the expense of our freedom.

Re:I agree with Kerr

[Damarkus13]

There's nothing more free than the truth. If everyone knows what everyone is doing and becomes accustomed to it then everyone can freely do as they will without fear of punitive judgement, as long as they don't break any laws... which is another discussion (see recommendations above).

I think that's where you missed the boat. The argument he's trying to make is that the government should know everything and we should trust them to keep this info confidential. I don't really have much of a problem with total transparency, but to think that the government is going to open their databases to the public is silly. (and not just their databases on the public, I mean TOTAL transparency, no more classified information)

I, for one, am not welcoming our new all-knowing overlords.

Re:I agree with Kerr

[arminw]

.......as they will without fear of punitive judgement, as long as they don't break any laws.......

Governments pile law upon law, yet nobody is able to keep the ten that were handed down personally by God, way back there on Mt. Sinai.

If everyone would know what another person's thoughts were, it would certainly put a crimp into law breaking. Many here on /. make it seem as if government is some special collective entity, rather than being composed of fallible people. The problem is that these people in government want to know what the citizens are thinking, but don't want the citizens to know what they are thinking. I wouldn't mind if these governmental people would know all I am thinking, if I could also know all of their thoughts.

Re:I agree with Kerr

[foniksonik]

Indeed. It's a good thing we live in a democracy and not in a fascist dictatorship, contrary to some opinions on the current state of the union... an election is coming up and the current leadership simply isn't allowed to stay in office.

Of course you can pull out a bunch of old straw man / bogey man arguments... but do you have an original one which is applicable?

Re:I agree with Kerr

[foniksonik]

Whom owns the corporations? Stock holders. You want to change how corporations influence the government... then buy some stock, find a forum of stock holders and start campaigning.

You drive a hard bargain

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me just think about it...

No, I think I'll keep my privacy, thank you. And I'll pay for that with my votes and tax money.

Need link to StreetView of Kerr's house

[Animats]

Is Donald Kerr's house in Google StreetView? What's the link?

The real trick

[Mi5ke561]

What this guy Kerr and the rest of the Bush Regime and it's merry henchmen haven't figured out yet is that the real trick is to protect a free society without interfering with it's ability to function as one. This guy fits Mr. Justice Brandeis observation that the real encroachments on liberty come, "from men of zeal, but without understanding." This guy fits that cookie cutter perfectly-- his reach exceeds his grasp. And because that's common in government, they're fast becoming a bigger threat to the ordinary citizen than the often notional terrorists are.

Privacy and Anonymity are different

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
Privacy means I don't have anybody poking around in my affairs without my knowledge and permission. That's a very important right.

Anonymity, whether I'm spelling it right or not, means that I can interact in a community without being identified. It's something that seldom existed in earlier ages, when communities were small and everyone knew you by your face. Sure, there was the Lone Ranger, the Black Knight, etc, but everyday people weren't anonymous. Only thieves, heros, and cowards were anonymous.

I enjoy the occasional anonymity, but I wouldn't consider it a right, nor would I fight for it.

Barking up the wrong tree -- Google

[Anonymous Coward]

All youse posting about how "a quick google" can turn up some info, some times:

TIA (Total Information Awareness, the one with the cute masonic all-seeing-eye logo) is all about doing that:
+ including all the things google doesn't let you see (the googlebot has more access that a normal browser / results are filtered by website request)
+ all the proprietary databases (credit, medical, social security, etc)
+ info obtained using national security letters and other programs (ip user mappings from ISPs and backbone taps)
+ experimental info interrelationship data (writing style analysis, social relation analysis)

Add all that together, and even John Smith #232345 aka JigglyPuffLover69 is uniquely identifiable and trackable...

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[dcray2000]

I'm sad to say I must agree with this. Bush was my favorite president until I started to hear of all the violations on our people. All this spying at home and I don't feel a bit safer from terrorists. Quite the opposite with a government for the government instead of the people.

Things can get worse

[Anonymous Coward]

President Giulliani will hurt privacy more than George W. Bush.

The privacy right has been judicially created

[Infonaut]

If the government wants to change what privacy means to THEM, they need a constitutional amendment.

The "right of privacy" is a judicial construct. I'm not saying that it is a bad construct, but you'll never see the word "privacy" in the Constitution. In interpreting the 4th Amendment, the Supreme Court has constructed a Constitutional protection of privacy. Maybe the definition of "activist judges" depends on where you sit. Anyway, the courts have acknowledged that this is an implicit, rather than explicit right.

Legislative acts have also defined privacy in their own ways, but the term "privacy" is a difficult one to define with precision when we're dealing with electronic communications. If the limits of privacy are no longer defined by your physical presence, how far does your right to privacy extend? With so much of our lives being lived online, would excessive provisions for privacy actually extend the doctrine further than it was originally intended?

Another question: We place our trust in Google every time we use its services, but why do we place more trust in a profit-maximizing enterprise than in our own government? Ostensibly we can hold our government accountable through elections, but we have less influence on corporations. Sure, we have the power of the wallet, but when's the last time you saw an effective consumer boycott in the information economy?

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[mweather]

"The "right of privacy" is a judicial construct. I'm not saying that it is a bad construct, but you'll never see the word "privacy" in the Constitution." The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[Kjella]

Legislative acts have also defined privacy in their own ways, but the term "privacy" is a difficult one to define with precision when we're dealing with electronic communications. If the limits of privacy are no longer defined by your physical presence, how far does your right to privacy extend? With so much of our lives being lived online, would excessive provisions for privacy actually extend the doctrine further than it was originally intended? I expect the same privacy as if I printed out the TCP/IP packets and mailed them to slashdot. Secondly. you're about a century too late because this was pretty much decided when we invented the telephone and wiretap warrants. Real life is, in case you haven't noticed, rather private. There are in general no records of a conversation or if my friend brought over a copy of playboy, but send an IM message and visit playboy.com they can be logged and archived with great efficiency. That we could overextend privacy in this way is pretty much a laughable claim, if you ask me.

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[BronsCon]

Another question: We place our trust in Google every time we use its services, but why do we place more trust in a profit-maximizing enterprise than in our own government? Ostensibly we can hold our government accountable through elections, but we have less influence on corporations. The government has a monopoly on choice. We have no choice, living in this country, whether or not we do business with the government of this country. If they screw us over, we vote, they ignore it; the worst we could do is leave, which is a win for them because they now have one less liability.

Google, on the other hand, has no monopoly. Argue it whichever way you wish, there is no monopoly held by Google. If they screw us over, we go elsewhere and they go out of business.

I'd say we truly have more control over the corporations than we do over the government. Of course, it appears to be the corporations who are in control of the governemtne anymore; perhaps we should excercise some of the control we have over one to regain control of the other?

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[Kadin2048]

Another question: We place our trust in Google every time we use its services, but why do we place more trust in a profit-maximizing enterprise than in our own government? Because profit-maximizing enterprises act in utterly predictable ways. This is totally straightforward, compared to Government, which is opaque and most of the time seems to have no single goal or purpose in mind at all. (I would argue that it acts according to whatever is to the greatest advantage of the people or groups with the most 'pull' at any given time, but determining who is really in control at any particular time is difficult, if not impossible, except sometimes in retrospect.)

Also, many people -- probably the majority of voters -- are involved in business and understand profit. Few people are actively involved in politics, and only a very small elite are involved deeply enough to really be comfortable with its machinations at high levels.

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Passport. Great for microsoft services, never really took off elsewhere. Why? Privacy concerns.

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[GaryPatterson]

Another question: We place our trust in Google every time we use its services, but why do we place more trust in a profit-maximizing enterprise than in our own government? Ostensibly we can hold our government accountable through elections, but we have less influence on corporations. Sure, we have the power of the wallet, but when's the last time you saw an effective consumer boycott in the information economy?

That's a good question.

When a corporation is publicly seen to do wrong, they suffer because customers turn away from it, if possible*. The wrong may even cause the government to step in, either at state or federal level, and prosecute a case against the corporation. Even if there's no illegality, customers can turn away because of the bad publicity. Yahoo was hit recently by the repetition of the story about them giving information to aid the Chinese government in cracking down on pro-democracy dissidents. I don't have hard data here, but I would assume that Yahoo was hit in the numbers by people turning to other search engines in protest.

If Google upsets people, they can almost trivially switch to another competing search engine.

We can't switch governments with the same ease though. They only hold elections every three or four years (depending where in the world you live) and realising this, quite often try the really objectionable stuff early in their term, so that people come around or at least forget the impact by the time the next election rolls around. In a very real sense, governments are less accountable than corporations in that we can't just turn to a competitor or buy a few shares and vote against the board. We have to wait and 'maintain the rage' until we can next cast our votes.

.

(* Corporations with monopoly power are special cases, which is why they get special regulation to try to ensure fairness.)

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[Anonymous Coward]

Another question: We place our trust in Google every time we use its services, but why do we place more trust in a profit-maximizing enterprise than in our own government? Ostensibly we can hold our government accountable through elections, but we have less influence on corporations. Sure, we have the power of the wallet, but when's the last time you saw an effective consumer boycott in the information economy?

If Google violates my privacy in ways that aren't illegal, I probably don't care too much. Although I may end up being a pissed customer and switching to a different search provider.

If Google violates my privacy in ways which aren't illegal, I will sue them and seek redress from the courts, and in a just society, will be compensated for damages. That's what the courts are there for. Google is not the government, they are a private corporation, subject to the same laws as you and me.

If the government violates my privacy, it may be too late to seek any recourse. If the government violates my privacy, I may end up sequestered in a naval brig, without access to lawyers, declared as an enemy combatant and a terrorist. The government has authority to use coercive means against me; Google does not. Naturally, I would like to make sure I deny the government the use of that authority wherever possible.

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google violates my privacy in ways which aren't illegal, I will sue them and seek redress from the courts

Err, that was obviously meant to be "ways which are illegal". :)

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[fyngyrz]

The "right of privacy" is a judicial construct.

Nonsense. It is a straightforward result of the 4th amendment. Specifically: How do you explain that the constitution explicitly says you are to be secure in your papers? Do you somehow think this means that the content of the papers is not covered, but the paper itself is to be secure from... what, fire? Mold? Confiscation by a paper envelope manufacturer?

Look here: The only thing that makes "papers" valuable, gives them a need to be secure, is what is on them. Your thoughts, ideas, messages, financial state, etc. We're not talking about unused Kleenex here. We're talking about what is on the paper when we say papers, not just the paper itself. It is entirely disingenuous to argue that the founders did not mean to protect information about your private life from the government. It is patently, blatantly, and undeniably obvious that is exactly what they meant to do.

Easy does not mean OK. Until any free person understands that, they're literally dangerous to this society.

It is very clear that even if it is easy to do, the government may not search your communications. The generalization to telephone communications is both natural and appropriate, as is the generalization to electronic communications. Email isn't very useful any longer due to the pathological neglect of the government, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered by the same blanket as your physical mail and your other papers are, regardless if the "paper' is vellum, papyrus, pressed wood pulp, stone tablets, or packets.

Constitutional limits were placed on government because it was the authors experience that governments without limits had a dependable history of abusing the citizens. These limits do indeed make it more difficult for the government to do the legitimate jobs that are assigned to it; this was known right up front. If course it'd be easier to apprehend criminals if we knew everything about everybody. But that also opens the door to other problems, and the authors of the constitution took care to explicitly prevent this. Or so they thought. They didn't anticipate the legal system as it stands today, I think that's safe to say. Nor the arguments put forth by those who think it is the government's job to protect/forbid them from everything ranging from failure to use a seatbelt to enemies that are not even known to specifically exist, no matter what the cost might be in liberty.

Re:The privacy right has been judicially created

[falconwolf]

The "right of privacy" is a judicial construct. I'm not saying that it is a bad construct, but you'll never see the word "privacy" in the Constitution. In interpreting the 4th Amendment, the Supreme Court has constructed a Constitutional protection of privacy. Maybe the definition of "activist judges" depends on where you sit. Anyway, the courts have acknowledged that this is an implicit, rather than explicit right.

USSC rulings also acknowledge the right to privacy in the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. If people can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they are not free to speak as they wish. Without anonymity any political speech a person makes can be used against them. If the authors of the "Federalist Papers" wasn't able to wrote under a pseudonym they may never of been published. Related I find it ironic that many people say Thomas Paine was not an American and Founding Father of the USA. Though he was English by birth, he was serving in the Continental Army under George Washington's command when he wrote "These are the times that try men's souls" in "The Crisis". Instead of writing under a pseudonym he wrote under his own name. The British crown put a bounty on his head for this.

Falcon

And very subtly, very delicately...

[mr_josh]

...the clamps start getting put in place. They turn the screws a thread at a time, make lots of fuzzy statements like "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won." The fight is lost. There is no fight. Submit. Submit.

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[VJ42]

"Donald Kerr likes having sex with a sheep", Hey, it's an insult to the Welsh linking them with this retarded US official, and insulting the Welsh is a right reserved only for the other nations of the UK. As an Brit, I'm handing you this cease and desist notice... ;p

If you aren't doing anything wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

you have nothing to hide.

Oh yes, I trust my Government. That has always worked in the past and it will continue to work. That's why our Founding Fathers pushed for a large and centralized authoritarian Government that has absolute power to monitor your e-mail in the NSA "locked-room" at AT&T headquarters, or search your house while you are away without a warrant. I'm sick of tired of hearing these hippies complain about Habeas Corpus. Who is going to need a judicial review after the Terrorists have killed us all. If you don't believe in freedom then you hate children and should move back to Communist China.

Government and Business Aren't One in the Same...

[krycheq]

I am in no way defending what Mr. Kerr has said here, but, he has probably spent the better part of his professional career in government and is speaking from the ignorant perspective that government exists to better people's lives and therefore equates the US government with any other big business. Unfortunately, because he's probably spent so much time in the government he doesn't understand that there are fundamental differences between businesses that are charged with maintaining the privacy of their customers' data and the government's charge to maintaining the privacy of their constituents... a charge which government has absolutely no penalty for abrogating.

Governments are not under threat of imprisonment, fines, termination, or other severe penalties that private business is when it can be proven that their actions were willfully negligent. Additionally, the government has no fear of "losing business" when they breach an acceptable level of confidentiality with regards to the data they've collected on someone. Business suffers when events like this occur... and Mr. Kerr can have no grasp on the reality of what constitutes suffering in the business world because government life doesn't operate in those terms.

It's a matter of congressional investigation when a breach occurs, and everyone and no one at the same time is held accountable. Very rarely are individuals actually singled out for the same kinds of treatment that has become commonplace in the business-world; the termination of employment at the least, for the mis-handling of confidential data.

So... while I am disappointed that Mr. Kerr cannot see why people would have a problem with not being able to expect and equate anonymity with privacy, I am not at all surprised.

Liberty First, Security Second [..or fifth]

[CranberryKing]

Someone needs to inform these people that [their idea of] security is not the end all. They seem to act as if anything that is in the way of security has to be removed. Difficult to gather intelligence? Sorry. Tough shit. That's unfortunate but you'll have to work with it because we aren't giving up our liberties. I wish I could change everything that makes my job tough to suit my job first but that's not why I'm there.

I must add, that I think they're lying anyway. They will use that excuse to get greater control and a lot of feeble minds right now are bowing to the security threat bs. Grow a backbone already and tell these clowns to get stuffed.

Do you think...

[Kjella]

...that the fourth amendment requiring reasonable cause, search warrants and so on was a burden in the past? I do. But the founding fathers understood something very important - the state isn't supposed to be the all-seeing eyes and ears, with the right to pry open every secret and search every bit of private information to make sure you're not doing anything improper. The files KGB and STASI kept on all citizens were seen as a hallmark of totalitarian governments, with their desire to control every bit of their citizens' lives. Every so often it is claimed that acting on suspicion and reasonable cause is not "efficient" enough, and that the government should be proactive through massive, intrusive surveilance without prior suspicion. Forget about showing your papers - that's only a coarse geographical location and doesn't even scratch the surface. A bug on your phone and internet connection is probably in many respects more effective than having an officer tail you around in person. Would you think it was ok if someone stalked you around all the time, as long as he was from the government? Why then do you accept him when he's there but not visible? There's never been a government in history, either through top-down totalitarianism or bottom-up corruption that hasn't vastly abused this information. To give up your anonymity is to give up your privacy and it is the stepping stone to giving up your liberty. While I don't like to quote Ayn Rand, it's the ultimate in gathering dirt on all your citizens. Loyalty to the state will be rewarded and troublemakers punished, starting with extra searches at the airport until you one day wake up and find you must either please the government or you're screwed.

Re:Do you think...

[NeverVotedBush]

Got Mod Points? Please mod the parent post UP!

Government: made of people.

[Xadnem]

That'd be great, if the government were trustworthy, but last I checked our whole system was built on paranoia about the government overstepping. Second, the 'government' is made of people, people who often-times aren't that honest themselves. I once worked with a guy whose wife worked for the IRS. Through her he had full access to financial info on everyone in our office, and loved to prove it.

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Kerr helped funnel funds to Al-Quaida

Google searched that statement and found hits. Donald Kerr MUST be reported for his terrorist connections. Afterall, everything on the Internet is TRUE or else it would not be on the Internet, right? ;-)

Very flawed premise

[laing]

"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties."

There is no way to interact with the government except THROUGH private parties. Every individual who works for the government is a PRIVATE PARTY. The fact that they are SUPPOSED to be operating in an official capacity makes little difference to me. All it takes is one bad apple to spoil the bunch (or in this case, to abuse my privacy).

History has demonstrated that these kinds of abuses by individuals acting in an official capacity do happen. As long as there are people involved, there's very little that can be done to safeguard information. This goes both ways; people are the greatest weakness when it comes to safeguarding government secrets as well.

The best solution is to enforce laws like the Privacy Act of 1974. Somewhere in there it prohibits the use of an SSN for anything other than Social Security.

--
This space for rent

No more anonymous piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks, took me more than 5 minutes to notice it's about "privacy" not piracy. I thought that one was dead anyway.

How about trying something different?

[Chaos Motor]

Instead of "redefining" privacy to mean "we know your private data, but we'll be responsible with it", how about we re-institute actual privacy? Instead of giving our personal information to companies who lose it or sell it or share it, how about we the people guard our own data? Instead of keeping it on their computers, let's keep it on our own.

In my opinion, software as a service and registration based software are two of the biggest perpetrators of data and privacy violations. They take away your right to manage who knows what about you, forcing you to provide whatever data the "service provider" chooses or dictates that they "need".

1) Make it illegal to force consumers to turn over private information unless it's a functional requirement of the process (not just data mining or marketing enhancement)

2) Make it illegal for companies to sell or share ANY personally identifiable data they collect, even names, phone numbers, and addresses.

3) Dismantle companies that violate privacy laws, retain identifiable customer data, or insist on data that is not a necessity to do business.

It's pretty simple! You own YOUR OWN data. No one else has a right to it. No one can force you to turn it over to do business with them unless it's a functional necessity of doing business and not just a preference. Anyone that violates privacy laws is dismantled.

BUT! BUT! It won't happen, because we live in a fascist corporate pathocracy where companies and money rule politics, the individual citizen, nay citizens period, are not considered, asked, or involved in any decisions, and THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR DATA ALSO. So they can spy on you. It's all to protect YOU from the "terrists" you know.

Nevermind the true terrorists are OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

Vague "terrorist threats", data mining, advertising, marketing, and "revenue enhancement" ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE REASONS TO DISMANTLE PRIVACY. Money and fear are NEVER reasons to willingly accept oppression or subordination.

Fight for your rights, America. Our rights aren't what some company claims they will recognize, or what our government claims they will 'allow'. These are inherent to our existence, and they are for US to decide, not someone else. Fight for your rights! Wake up before it's too late.

Re:How about trying something different?

[IvyKing]

3) Dismantle companies that violate privacy laws, retain identifiable customer data, or insist on data that is not a necessity to do business.

Better yet, remove the civil and criminal liability protection for the shareholders. There's nothing that would improve corporate behavior faster than if fund managers would be facing prison time and huge fines or lawsuits for the misdeeds of the companies that they bough stock in.

Re:How about trying something different?

[Khaed]

Fight for your rights, America.

If people were willing to do this, we wouldn't have to make the above illegal... because the corporations behind it would be punished by "vote with your wallet."

Re:How about trying something different?

[Chaos Motor]

I wish that were possible, but corporate ownership and control are so deeply tangled throughout all economic sectors that it's utterly impossible to 'vote with your wallet' 100% of the time. You're lucky to have an option to purchase from someone else, much less a realistic option.

Until we tackle the rats nest of corporate parentage, and the protective 'regulations' that only serve to keep competition out of markets, voting with your dollar in a way that makes any impact at all remains a high-minded dream.

In all, I think we can assign blame to the shift from citizens to consumers. That is to say, sigh, we're all responsible for being negligent.

Trust is good control is better - Vladimir Lenin

[karlandtanya]

Welcome to the surveillance society.

Can't See Me!

[rueger]

Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that

Anyone here perhaps, but there are still many, many people who won't show up in a Google search, or who will show up with only the most benign data. Your profile in Google searches pretty much depends on your activity on the 'net, (or in the public sphere) and on how much information you choose to make available.

None of which is relevant to any discussion surrounding government and privacy. They're supposed to protect you, not roll over and play dead.

Re:Can't See Me!

[falconwolf]

Anyone here perhaps, but there are still many, many people who won't show up in a Google search, or who will show up with only the most benign data. Your profile in Google searches pretty much depends on your activity on the 'net, (or in the public sphere) and on how much information you choose to make available.

Google doesn't know me, Google my name and nothing comes up about me.

Falcon

Privacy never meant annonymity

[dokhebi]

The Right to Privacy, as put forth by the Constitution of the United States of America, never intended for any one to be anonymous. Anonymous people have no voice in the government because they are unkown and faceless. Only those who stand up to be counted, by their vote and their enumeration in a census, can be a part of the government.

Privacy means that the gevernment can't look into your life without just cause.

As always, this is only my $0.02 worth.

Re:Privacy never meant annonymity

[falconwolf]

The Right to Privacy, as put forth by the Constitution of the United States of America, never intended for any one to be anonymous. Anonymous people have no voice in the government because they are unkown and faceless. Only those who stand up to be counted, by their vote and their enumeration in a census, can be a part of the government.

You've got thing switched around. According to USSC rulings without anonymity the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech means nothing. As one USSC ruling said if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they do not have freedom of speech. The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.[pdf] case is one such case. In Watchtower Bible v. Stratton the USSC upholds "Anonymity, Free Speech." In another case a CATO brief argues "Anonymity and Associational Privacy Remain Important Guarantors of Free Political Speech."

Falcon

Google my real name

[falconwolf]

Type my real name into google and you'll find 3 entries relating to me

When I Google my full name I get more than 100 results. None of the results on the first page are about me. Same with the second and third pages, only 1 result is shown on the third one with a link to omitted results.

Falcon

Re:Google my real name

[ThirdPrize]

when I Googled my full name I was shocked and horrified by what I got back.

Yours
mr George C Goatse.Cx III

Donald Kerr got 2 words for you

[falcon5768]

Treasonist bastard, also know as who you are.

Re:first fisting post!

[ColdWetDog]

Actually, any stories posted on /. that tend to expose the current administration for what it is tend to get these kinds of posts. Me thinks the Bush administration is watching and trying to prevent people from discussing their treason.

If that's the case, it isn't working well. According to the Oracle at Google, "Bush" is mentioned "about 18,700" times at Slashdot. Just about as popular as Mr. Gates (21,700 hits).

Treason Onward, comrades!

Fundamentally!

[Anne Thwacks]

There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties.

Yes: the government is five times more likely to leak it!

We can stop using Google at any time, little cost.

[FatSean]

The same cannot be said for our government. There is a significant cost to changing citizenship, if it is at all possible.

Also, Google cannot declare me an 'enemy combatant' and suspend my right to a trial.

To ask the question is to answer it

[franois-do]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Lord Acton, letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

"Any Constitution tant does not take into account the fact that a government can be perverted is useless"

Maximilien de Robespierre

Without Anonymity

[Nom du Keyboard]

Without anonymity the small voice with be Bitch SLAPPed into silence!

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Tom]

The Bush administration has shit all over the Constitution and this country. They have committed treason. That's not what scares me (or any other onlooker from Europe or the rest of the world).

What scares us is that you shitheads let them get away with it. You almost impeached a president for lying about a blowjob, but you don't take down an administration that is actively dismantling everything your ancestors fought and died for.

I'll bite,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite,

How do you get "security" and "anonymity," but not "privacy"?

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I googled my name, no hits. This clown needs to get hit with a clue bat. The government should not be gathering "data" about me from any source period. This sucks. We have a Government by the Rich and Corporations and for the Rich and Corporations. I don't know how we go about getting it back. All the current political parties and movements are just as bad or worse. The only thing that will work is to vote them all out every last one of them.

Re:You don't know what the fuck you're talking abo

[Cassius Corodes]

Actually the liberty part refers to living where you want (i.e. on the frontier) - temporary safety was the inclination to move back to the safety of larger cities and abandoning new settlements that were being raided by the Indians. The letter was calling on the government to help fund the weapons with which the settlers could protect themselves, given that it was uneconomical for government troops to protect the frontier.

So the letter wasn't a "diatribe against blind, stupid pacifism" but against government putting up red tape to avoid having to spend money for the protection of settlers.

I am going to change my name as soon as I can...

[franois-do]

... to something like : François-D'; delete table taxpayers; while it still works on some sites :-D

Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The White House argued that the law [FISA] was obstructing intelligence gathering."

So does the US Constitution.

How inconvenient.

A time of great tribulation is upon us.

[falconwolf]

""These are the times that try men's souls."
Thomas Paine

Falcon

Text of "1984" (Apple commercial)

[puterTerrorist]

This is so fucking scary ... I can't believe there are people in the US that even think of talking like this Kerr guy.

Text of "1984"

"Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!"

MOD PARENT UP

[jamie(really)]

Totally agree. And you can sue them.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[3waygeek]

Unless you're Valerie Plame Wilson.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[jamie(really)]

Indeed. My point is that you can sue private companies, but you can't sue the government, because the government gets to choose who gets to sue.

Really a tempest in a teapot.

[mpaque]

This is really a tempest in a teapot. The federal government's interpretation of what constitutes your right to privacy and how they will act to protect it while keeping the country safe is all detailed in the Continuity Annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51. See item 23 in particular.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html>

Interesting approach

[pedrop357]

They don't understand that one core aspect of privacy is selectiveness. Just because I disclose to the blockbuster clerk a certain piece of information doesn't entitle the government to that info, nor does that disclosure justify their extracting that info under penalty of law.

I guess if I have sex with that blockbuster clerk, I'm obligated to perform those same services on government officials and/or they're justified in demanding that I do as much. You see, I went down on her (blockbuster clerk) so I shouldn't have any problem with the police/government demanding the same treatment, right?

the differ ence is...

[timmarhy]

.. google isn't able to kick down my door and arrest me indefinately without charge because some little worm at DHS thinks i'm a terrorist.

it's called checks and balances people, clearly this guy was dropped on his head as a baby.

Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 (sadly mistaken)

[Crypto Gnome]

that the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, of the Bill of Rights---indeed, the spirit of America--- Sadly sir, you are mistaken. For many many many years now, it has not even slightly been about "the spirit of <something which we all care passionately about>" (not even when the intention of a written document is so painfully obvious that even a 5 year old can explain what is being said) but rather "exactly specifically which words were used in what order and how can I possibly reinterpret them to mean exactly what I want to say?".

Issues like this go to court, courts are driven by lawyers, lawyers are not ever not even slightly interested in the truth, or what is right (morally/ethically or otherwise). They are only interested in proving whatever their client is paying them to prove.

No. You're wrong...

[msauve]

A right to privacy exists, and does not rely upon the Constitution, which simply defines the powers the people give to government.

This is affirmed by the 9th Amendment, although the right exists independently of it.

You're the sort of person for whom the Bill of Rights was added, because you simply don't understand the concept. The Constitution gives the Federal Government no power to intrude on privacy, therefore the right is retained by the people.

bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince... It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations...I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84

Much US "case law," isn't law (in the exact same sense that our current money doesn't have value). It's not founded on any pure principles of ethics or logic, despite the claims of weasly lawyers and congresscritters, but upon convenience and authority through force. It's a history of progressive ursurpations of powers not granted by the people, and is illegitimate. The king has no clothes.
That some judge states "black is white" doesn't make it so, and simply weakens any legitimacy the law once had.

Re:No. You're wrong...

[HTH NE1]

The Constitution gives the Federal Government no power to intrude on privacy Read the 4th Amendment again: the Federal Government is empowered to conduct reasonable searches and seizures under an issued Warrant, so issued upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:No. You're wrong...

[msauve]

Read the 4th Amendment again

Read the article again. This is about warrantless wiretaps, bulk Internet traffic snooping, and other unconstitutional infringments of privacy.

Re:No. You're wrong...

[HTH NE1]

Read the article again. Read your statement again. The article doesn't make your statement of an absolute non-existence of federal government power to invade privacy not demonstratively false.

Any search, even by legal Warrant, is an invasion of privacy. The government is empowered to invade privacy only so far as defined in the 4th Amendment, but it is so empowered.

The point being made is that rights pre-exist the government and those rights not explicitly spelled out still belong to the people. Their enumeration serves to call attention to the really important ones that have been infringed historically and emphasize that the government and that it can only constrain those rights as spelled out within them. The right to privacy is clearly implicitly enumerated in the 4th Amendment by the restrictive terms under which the Federal Government is permitted to invade it.

Had you pointed out the 4th Amendment, I would not have had to. You blithely ignored it. You weakened your argument accordingly.

Re:No. You're wrong...

[msauve]

Fuck off, pedant (and learn to recognize context).

Re:No. You're wrong...

[HTH NE1]

Fuck off, pedant (and learn to recognize context). If you can't stay true to and within the self-contained context of your own messages (and can't take criticism aimed at improving your discourse), you're not worth reading.

And have some class not to exercise your karma bonus for a profane attack. It shows you aren't worthy of it.

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[tomhudson]

Are you going to send Google a C & D as well? After all, googling for "Donald Kerr sex sheep" returns this thread as the #1 hit. (Its also #1 for Donald Kerr naked aliens", "Donald Kerr public washroom", and #1 and #2 for "Donald Kerr botnet").

without anonymity, democracy is not possible

[jdogalt]

obvious redundant comment...

The fact that our our government is run by people who say such things, shows that the cause is lost.

Without the protection of true anonymous political free speech, there is no such thing as real democracy. The very fabric of real democracy depends on people being able to express their beliefs about what their government should be doing in their name, without any fear of that anonymity being less than 100%.

When true anonymity is gone, all that will be expressed will be biased towards what people believe will get the most positive response from the forces that may be violating the anonymity.

I.e. the political discourse in the country will be deprived of true intelligent conversation, and replaced with nothing but brown-nosers, hoping that what they are saying will gain them some slight social and political benefit for them and their families in the future. Sure the brown nosers will be their always, but if you have true anonymity, then the democratic ideal is that that the people voicing the cold-hard truth will at least have some chance to be heard.

I still have some hope in the checks and balances... But is it ever depressing hearing this kind of utterly stupid/evil shit coming from the people in power.

Bottom Line: Anonymity can be protected. Anyone who says otherwise is a fascist, a coward, or lazy.

-dmc (posted non-anonymously, only because I'd rather be crucified than live in the world that seems to be coming, if things like anonymous free speech are not protected)

Only By Knowing Everything about you can we do...

[Tiger Smile]

...anything to you. Ask Harry Buttle.

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[pjt33]

There's no need to do that. The first page of hits for Donald Kerr already reveals that he played a call boy in a 1933 film called Forty Naughty Girls, and that he moonlights as a Scottish Nationalist councillor.

Seriously.

[Tiger Smile]

I'm getting tried to typing this over and over, but I must. We can do something about this. Somewhere in the whole of the Internet there must be a good leader or someone with great ideas on what we can do about an over reaching government or, at least, one that has lost it's way. We are the to branch of government, We The People. Once there was spine enough in the population of the US to get made about an increase in tea tax. Oh, I know it was a complicated issue, but people did seem to have a hell of allot more spine. I don't think anything illegal need be done, but I'm sure that there must be brains enough somewhere in this world do so something about this.

Q: How to start?

Q: What can we do collectively?

Q: Should Rob run for political office?

Let's hear ideas and not complaints. Whining dumb person or smart do-gooder?

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr."

Great! We should give Kerr a dose of his own medicine by posting about how "Donald Kerr likes having sex with a sheep", "Donald Kerr was arrested for soliciting sex in a public washroom", "Donald Kerr was indicted for embezzling $5 million dollars", "Donald Kerr was convicted of sexually assaulting an 82-year-old woman after tazering her", "Donald Kerr helped funnel funds to Al-Quaida", "Donald Kerr was found wandering naked in a local park, claiming to have been abducted by aliens, who then probed his body", "Donald Kerr is a vocal proponent of scientology", "Donald Kerr is president of the Washington Brittney Speares fan club", "Donald Kerr controls a bot-net of 250,000 PCs", "Donald Kerr accepted 'gifts' of $4.5m from Microsoft", "Donald Kerr wants to track people via bluetooth".

After all, Google is now a "good source" for Donald Kerr.

(Note to the humour-impaired - the above is fair comment satire directed at a public officials' political policy statements, and in no way is an endorsement of Mr. Kerr's positions on privacy OR sex with a sheep) **Quoted for extra google goodness

Case law says there is a right to anonymity

[IvyKing]

US case law does support the right to anonymity in political writings. One example was a City of LA law overturned as unconstitutional because it required contact information for any leaflets distributed within city limits.

Actually, even more to the point is the secret ballot - while the fact you voted is recorded, how you voted should not be traceable to you (unfortunately not always the case).

Translation...

[TechnicolourSquirrel]

"Instead of troubling yourself with the invconvenience of hiding your secrets, why don't you put them in this nice simple little lockbox we've made for you? And here's your key. Copies? No, I didn't make any copies. Scout's honour!"

Cost Of Information Versus Cost Of Privacy

[broward]

This was predictable based on strategic considerations of the cost of information versus the cost of privacy. I predicted it almost two years ago.

http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?entry=cost_of_information_versus_cost

"As the cost of information falls, it becomes increasingly harder to control who knows what. The foundation of successful conspiracies is the control of critical information by small, selected groups of individuals.... an increasingly difficult strategy in an era of cheap, easy access to information."

The Right to Armed Bears

[Crypto Gnome]

Seriously people, isn't this kind of attitude in the government exactly why the constitution insisted on the Right to Bear Arms?

So when some ass-hat in Dub GubMint makes wisecracks like this which no reasonable person of sound mind and healthy body would just blindly accept, there's scope for the citizens to rise up in defence of their inalienable rights.

Really, what on earth is holding you all back?
I mean it, what exactly, specifically, is stopping you?

303Million Concerned Citizens cannot possibly be wrong.

Re:The Right to Armed Bears

[GaryPatterson]

I'm not a US citizen, but...

I mean it, what exactly, specifically, is stopping you?

Well, aside from the US military forces, probably the way that the first (small) group to do this will be branded a terrorist organisation then attacked with the full force of the law. The government will make them all look like Timothy McVeigh, and the public will be glad to see them put away for life.

You can bear arms all you like, but there's no way you can fight the government if the military back them and not you. All the handguns and even machine guns in the world won't stop a tank or a fighter plane.

You need a better solution than violence and, conveniently, there's one coming up soon. If you really disagree with the government, organise a grass-roots change through voting. Get people interested and focused on change. Make the politicians answer to you.

303Million Concerned Citizens cannot possibly be wrong.

The people voted the government in. Still think large numbers of people are always right?

Re:The Right to Armed Bears

[Crypto Gnome]

heh

The people voted the government in. I do believe that is disputed. ;-)

Put your trust in Government and Business?

[etnu]

I see they've moved on from smoking crack to hallucinogens.

Re:You don't know what the fuck you're talking abo

[Nikker]

"gave up [their] essential liberty" of BEARING ARMS paid for by the government"

So essential liberty is the ability to have your word count, maintaining the status quo against something they didn't want, bearing arms were just at tool that gave them a chance.

Trespass and Trespass to Chattel

[TwoHundredOk]

Heres an idea: People could post legal terms of service on their social networing pages declaring that employers and prospective employers are forbidden from looking at or copying from the pages. Such terms would be like No Trespassing signs on land.

Traditionally, tortious trespass is trespass, regardless of whether or not there is a sign. Now, it's not trespass if you're thrown on to the private property, or if you run there to take cover from an act of god. But if you are wandering around and merely don't know that it's someone else's property, then you are liable. Of course, tort law varies from state to state. But the general upshot is that a "no trespassing" sign doesn't do much.

Secondly, as mentioned previously, some consider that this might fall under "trespass to chattel." I can't remember the case offhand, but there was a case where IBM attempted to sue a disaffected employee who had been e-mailing current employees. They tried to sue for trespass to chattel, arguing that the e-mail was trespassing on their computers, this failed, however, since trespass to chattel generally requires damage to be done. There was no damage done to the computer from the e-mail, only to the workers' productivity. I imagine similar reasoning could be used to negate any such claims then.

To get back to the point, you are suggesting some sort of electronic shrink-wrap license that binds employers to not use information from a social networking site towards hiring practices. I'm not sure if there's some precedent that would endorse this idea, but my own gut feeling is that it would fail. There isn't an adequate public policy reason to disallow companies from using social network information (in fact, there may be incentive for companies TO do such a thing, to reduce their hiring of 'troublesome' workers). Secondly, since people are willingly volunteering this information to the public at large, it would be hard to argue that one special class of people is not allowed to view or use that information. It's kind of backwards compared to most other privacy issues, where people giving information to a specific class of people are trying to PREVENT the general public from viewing/using it.

And ethically, I, speaking personally now, see nothing wrong with denying someone a job based on information that they have willingly submitted to others. If they had broadcast something on tv that made them less 'hire-able,' the law certainly wouldn't protect it. Therefore, if it's your prerogative to post pictures of you drinking yourself into oblivion or complaining about your awkwardness at social functions, I think it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to deny you a position based on that information. Now, of course, if they deny it to you because of your race, creed, etc. then that would be unfair according to our laws. That, however, is already protected regardless of if you post it on the internet or not. So I am not seeing the reasoning behind not holding people accountable for their own actions here.

P.S. This is just my response to the points you have brought up. The main point of contention from Kerr, that of giving up anonymity in favor of having the government 'safeguard' and be 'responsible' for our private data, I find to be completely ridiculous. Our government should not play the part of some wizened patriarch. It is here to enhance our ability to organize (economically and militarily). It should be a moderator, not a bully.

Re:Trespass and Trespass to Chattel

[Benjamin_Wright]

TwoHundredOk: Suppose a person conspicuously posts at the top of his myspace page these terms: "If you are an employer or prospective employer, by continuing to read the content of this page, you contractually agree that you will not use this content in any employment-related evaluation of me. If you do not wish to agree to these terms, then stop reading now." Why is an employer incapable of entering this contract? What is about contract law that prevents this contract from being formed or enforced?

Re:Trespass and Trespass to Chattel

[TwoHundredOk]

It certainly might be enforced, however there is ample ground to make it unenforceable as well. First and foremost, if it's TOO conspicuous, such that a reasonable person wouldn't see it, then it probably wouldn't be a contract based on previous cases dealing with shrink-wrap licenses. Secondly, such a contract has no consideration. There is nothing of value passing between both parties which would make it binding (a valid contract must have offer, acceptance, and consideration). Even if you argue that the employer gains something valuable by the information (which I think is a bit of a stretch), the poster gains nothing. Even if even if you get the courts to go along with that, they still might find on public policy that such a contract is unenforceable. Imagine the flood of litigation if people could sue other people for reading their blogs? Besides that, it just doesn't make sense to publish something and then tell people not to read it. I think it would be a hard sell.

The discussion about Trespass and Trespass to Chattel, however, deals with Torts (civil litigation for harms) not for contracts. But yes, I don't think it could work via Contract law either.

Oblig.

[pjt33]

Obligatory xkcd link.

Wow, that's some atrocious reading skills

[Pinky's Brain]

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? It's a diatribe against the governor refusing to impose taxes to raise money for defense and negotiate for peace with the indians!

The giving up of essential liberties refers to the sentence before ... "We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther." Which as the other poster said means they don't want the fucking army in their backyard.

With liberty and justice

[bonkeydcow]

With liberty and justice for none?

oh relax

[ODiV]

He's clearly not looking to circumvent existing anti-discrimination laws. Quit picking nits.

The important thing here (and what everyone but you is discussing) is the method that the information was retrieved. Personal information is getting easier to come by because of the Internet. Some of that personal information can legally be used in employment decisions. Welcome to the discussion.

Re:You don't know what the fuck you're talking abo

[Anonymous Coward]

"protection of settlers" in this context is about the most racist/imperialist thing I could think of.

That's what they always say

[Tablizer]

The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.

Damned Constitution always gittin' in th' way of easy snoopin'.

Simply Unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that this person is part of my government is simply unacceptable.

He needs to be trying to protect my rights as an adult citizen, which includes the right to privacy and the right to pursue happiness. Sadly, there is no right to travel, no right to anonymous travel even though that is part of my pursuit of happiness.

Back to work Mr. Kerr - protecting my rights, not making excuses for why you can't. If you can't do that job, please, step down.

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Tablizer]

The Bush administration has shit all over the Constitution and this country. They have committed treason.

I find a contradiction from Whitehouse Republicans. Republican thinking is that you don't let the government do to much because the government is allegedly incompetent. But if the government is incompetent handling the economy and health-care, why would they be competent in handling homeland spying?

I tried looking for my name on Google...

[jedo]

Searched for "Donald Kerblum" and it's not there! I'm still anonymous!

...oh crap

Re:You don't know what the fuck you're talking abo

[Cassius Corodes]

That was the attitude at the time. For all his modern thinking Franklin was not above cynically dismissing the natives rights to fight for their lands. He actually states in the letter that they should have come forward to the authorities with their grievances before attacking and that they would have addressed any legitimate issue they had. Yeah right.

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[pete-classic]

For the record, he was impeached on charges of the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was acquitted, but later disbarred, probably because of questions about his honesty in court.

-Peter

Activists attend conventions

[davidwr]

Fortunately, both /. and political conventions attract more than their fair share of activists.

I've met very few sheeple at political conventions. Most of them were spouses or boy/girlfriends who really didn't want to be there.

Re:We can stop using Google at any time, little co

[FreakWent]

"Also, Google cannot declare me an 'enemy combatant' and suspend my right to a trial."

I bet they could declare you a terrorist by placing the right search results and adding a few incriminating pages.

The Govt would just follow along, lock you up and declare the evidence as secret.

Easy peasy.

"Privacy" advocates created their own problem

[FredThompson]

Overzealous "privacy advocates" took things way too far when they attacked the government's collection of publicly available information. It's one thing to be concerned about the creation of travel dossiers but quite another thing to claim the government cannot compile the same information which is available to any Joe Blow (phone books, news articles, web postings, etc.) There is certainly a need for any society to have ability to protect itself by detecting the "bad guys" in its midst. There is also the aspect of "surrendering anonymity", to some extent, to have a modern society (drivers license, credit cards, medical records, etc.) The zealots have helped give credibility to the government's positions where it matters, in the courts and Congress. They sacrificed strategic "victory" for immediate publicity. Stupid.

Re:"Privacy" advocates created their own problem

[Anonymous Coward]

sob sob wah wah wah

Find some solid footing before crying to us. Standing proud with the government that itself rules collections of publicly available information as confidential because it has been compiled in an easy-to-use form puts you in quicksand while you wail and gnash your teeth about people who are against the government compiling publicly available information in an easy to use form.

Re:"Privacy" advocates created their own problem

[geekoid]

"but quite another thing to claim the government cannot compile the same information which is available to any Joe Blow"

no, it's not.

First off, you, and everybody else on this site, need to stop saying 'The Government'. You talk as if it's one body, it is not. There is very good reason for this, I suggest you read up.

Second, The bodies that make up the government have strict policy and laws on what and how information can be exchanged, again, this is good. It is there to help protect you from the government taking your rights away.

Third, Bad guys in the midst? there is an easy way to tell. They committed a crime. Sure an investigation will ensue and the person will be got or not. That is no reason to allow the government to compile lists, and search them for pattern that might fit a crimes. There is an unbelievable amount of logical fallacies that will take place. When you have that much data, people will perceive patterns that don't exist. Instead of doing an investigation of the crime, they will look for any pattern they think the culprit would do. Hmmm this black person took 22 minutes longer to get home, arrest him. It will just become a game of 6 degrees. In which all persons are a suspect.

Forth, Just because I give some organization some information, doesn't mean I gave it to everybody.
Privacy is a matter of control and degrees.

If I go out side, I give up my anonymity as to where I am at the time, and what I am wearing. Not to my thoughts, or where I am going, or what color underwear I am wearing.

Re:"Privacy" advocates created their own problem

[FredThompson]

That's a very condescending comment considering you don't know anything about me or my knowledge and experience. Stick to the topic, not your personal angers.

Read what I typed, not what you want to warp it to state.

Laws can and are changed quite frequently and they are subject to interpretation over time. Additionally, I specifically mentioned publicly available data.

If your only concept of protection is responding after the fact, you are most certainly very foolish. A gun only smokes after it's fired. Far better to stop it from being fired in the first place. That is a universal principle. You are proposing only reactive actions, not preventative.

That attitude is certainly something you may chose for your life but such cavalier disregard for life is not held by responsible people.

There is no appreciable racial component of crime in America. The vast majority of civilian crimes happen within socio-economic groups. That is true at national, state, county and local levels of analysis.

There most certainly are pre-cursor activities which yield a very high level of predictability of future crimes. The term "repeat offender" has a very specific meaning. Pre-cursor activities by non-felons are certainly worthy of tracking, too. The legal terms "conpiracy" and "intent" are well established and valid.

You're more than welcome to prove me wrong. Use a credit card to buy a few hundred disposable cell phones and a ton or so of ammonia-based fertilizer.

Re:"Privacy" advocates created their own problem

[FredThompson]

Your comment is non-sensical. I said the "privacy advocates" weakened their position by "crying wolf" too often.

now you've done it

[davidwr]

I Googled

Donald Kerr sex sheep

and guess what popped up near the top?

Ninth Amendment is critical to modern 'privacy'

[Kadin2048]

Although it's true that the Ninth Amendment is sort of the red-headed stepchild of the Bill of Rights, it was invoked specifically by Justice Goldberg in his concurring opinion in the landmark case Griswold vs Connecticut, which basically established the unenumerated 'right to privacy' in the United States:

To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...."

In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted [there]...as to be ranked as fundamental."

This opinion was shared by Justices Brennan and Warren, as well. (And I would argue that it turned out to be far more significant than the Court's opinion written by Douglas, which mostly railed about the sanctity and social virtues of marriage and really didn't get into privacy generally.) Although Griswold took on only the rather narrow issue of contraception, and even that only between married couples, the reasoning therein was later applied to other realms.

So although the Ninth does get mentioned far more seldom than it should, its existence is critical and quite central to the current privacy debate. It has not been completely ignored.

If you're interested in reading a layman's introduction to the 'right to privacy' as it has developed through several major USSC cases, I might humbly suggest my own "Right to Privacy Primer" (text version) which I wrote a while back and recently updated.

Re:Ninth Amendment is critical to modern 'privacy'

[mweather]

Not quite what I meant. The constitution lists government powers, not citizen's rights. We always had the right to privacy. Just like we had the right to bear arms before the second amendment was written. Which is why it says the government may not infinge on our right to bear arms and not that the people have a right to bear arms. The right already existed.

Stuff I could find :

[falconwolf]

The info you list comes from /. not Google, and not all of what you list is right. Such as "Age 21", heck I don't see where that comes from, looking at my profile there's nothing in it about my age. Now if you read through my posts you will see I am older than 21, even going so far as to say I was stationed in Germany years ago while in the US Army. And unlike what you say, "You live in Missouri", I do not live and have never said I did live in Missouri. I have said though the state I live in, even said the city, if I recall right.

Falcon

Re:Stuff I could find :

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

But you are taking extraordinary measures to protect your identity, and as you said I could find more details if I wanted to. With an ip adress I would be able to trace you, or if I got you to email to me somehow.

And this is only necessary because of the extreme precautions you take. If you search for me you'll find a whole lot more. And I do take some basic precautions.

Re:Stuff I could find :

[falconwolf]

But you are taking extraordinary measures to protect your identity, and as you said I could find more details if I wanted to. With an ip adress I would be able to trace you, or if I got you to email to me somehow.

I don't think I take extraordinary measures, I just take reasonable measures. Then again what's reasonable today may be extraordinary. However reading what some teenagers are doing, I don't take enough actions. While I try not to give out imprudent info or info that's too personal, I don't lie, create untrue info, either.

Falcon

We do need to redefine privacy - with cryptography

[vkg]

At the end of the day, you can't use somebody else's computer, and expect privacy. You can't use somebody else's network, and expect privacy. If I jack into your ethernet hub, you're going to have the possibility of reading my traffic unless I use HTTPS / SSH / GPG etc.

That's our real relationship with Comcast, with AT&T and so on. They're snoopy sysadmins on a gigantic scale, and we should treat them like snoopy sysadmins of any other kind: encrypt and tunnel all traffic, and push back technically as hard as we can. P2P has led the way on this, but it's really time we stopped dinking around and started defaulting to HTTPS even on sites like Slashdot.

On the broader level, I did some work on this (ironically, the first draft of the work was done for the USG.)

http://guptaoption.com/4.SIAB-ISA.php

It's a system - built on open source software for the most part (and the remaining stuff could be built) - which provides for a rock solid personal identity card which has three critical properties:

* all your personal data is encrypted, and only a court can decrypt it
* the card has no unique identifiers on it, and you have dozens of cards (that you leave with institutions like your bank to "anchor" your account)
* it's dirt cheap and secure enough to entrust with biometric data like DNA fingerprints.

Concerted effort to produce an open alternative which offers strong security *AND* strong privacy by carrying the debate to a higher technical level than schemes like RealID is long past due.

Phil Zimmerman settled the encryption issue for most of a generation with PGP. It's time for us to consider doing the same for general communications snooping, and then moving out into areas like the poor protection of identity in systems like the Social Security Number-based credit reporting system.

We can do better, and we must.

L. Detweiler and the theory of Nymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's L. Detweiler when you need him!? Quite a character on the Cypherpunks Usenet list circa 1995. Tried to formalize the notions of what privacy and identity mean (Theory of Nymity) in an online world.

If everyone on the internet was anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

How would Google find any names?
I think It would be great to have more anonymous messageboards because I keep pissing people off and then they don't listen to anything I say and I have to change names.Just because I disagree on one issue doesn't mean all my ideas are bad. But that's the structure of the internet in the usa.It's all a big myspace to some people. I hear in japan there are a lot more anonymous forums .I think if you keep on the subject and keep the spammers away you can create a great engineering environment.Corporations and individual could profit from such an environment and maybe we could get some problems solved instead of all the crap.But i'm just one guy with an anonymous idea.You can take it or leave it.I think there is plenty of room on the web for experimentation.
Also I don't trust giving corporation my information any more than the government.Corporations have more control over us than the government any more.

Maybe he should look at his own statement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the problem isn't that we are so focussed on anonymity. Maybe the problem is that we feel that we NEED anonymity, because our information won't be kept private. Or will be somehow used against us in ways we were originally promised it wouldn't.

Re:You don't know what the fuck you're talking abo

[Anonymous Coward]

Settlers?... Or invaders? And since we're "settling" in for a nice long stay in Iraq, maybe we should cut the red tape there also.

FISA not FSIA

[Myopic]

Point of fact: it's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act not the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, which is a good thing, because FISA is much easier to pronounce than FSIA.

Voting?

[greg_barton]

"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won."

Has this man never voted?

Or, maybe that's a moot point.

Re:Voting?

[n6kuy]

I think privacy is something each of us is going to have to be responsible for and arrange for ourselves. I think it highly likely that government trying to protect our anonymity is a fight that can't be won.

1. Despite government's best efforts, the criminally minded will always find a way to compromise your privacy,

2. government itself, regardless of which party is in charge, is interested in some of your private data (Republicans want to know what you're doing in your bedroom; Democrats want to know if you utter some racial slur in a private conversation...)

Re:Voting?

[greg_barton]

Not my point.

Ever heard of a "secret ballot"?

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[jay-be-em]

Seriously? Your favorite president ever? Have you read any history prior to 2000?

"It's not for us to inflict one size fits all"

[Anonymous Coward]

"And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68.

        So DON'T! That's exactly what you intend to do, if you are just going to claim I shouldn't bother to maintain my privacy. I for one do NOT have a Myspace or Facebook page; typing my name in to Google finds geneology charts which cover someone else with my name who died like 200 years ago (except for one hit that's several pages in.) And as for giving my private info to some green-card holder at an ISP.. umm, no. My ISP has my name, address, and bill-pay info. They don't get to troll through my bank account records, listen in on calls, read my mail, etc. They also do not hire illegals or people with green cards (which is a straw man anyway, honestly.) This is completely different from giving the feds unfettered access to all the above information plus whatever else they can data mine.

          Frankly, Kerr can fuck right off. Don't claim people should "redefine privacy" or "balance privacy".. that is simply horseshit, you are talking about elminating people's right to privacy, pure and simple. People HAVE "taken stock" of what they are willing to give up; Kerr might not like it, but they don't want to give it up (excepting some subset of cowards who wish to give up all privacy.)
    Now, speaking about safeguards is correct. There should be safeguards similar to the European Privacy Directives in place; sadly, that's not what Kerr is referring too, because these privacy directives would make the kind of illegal tapping and data mining the feds are doing and wish to continue doing prohibitively expensive due to the constant fines they would have to pay.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the last ten years, a ten year period covering the two largest terrorist attacks on American soil, less people were killed by terrorists than were killed by their own appendix.

Why were we not asked to give up all our rights and privacy to stop appendicitis?

More people were shot by cops. More people drowned.

If you added up the remaining life expectancy of all those who died in the OK City bombing and the 9/11 attacks, it would be dwarfed by the man-hours spent standing in line at airports in some pathetic imitation of added security. This is not an exaggeration.

If these attacks on our civil liberties have anything to do with real national security, then I am the King of Spain.

What politicians fail to grasp...

[sigmabody]

... is that citizens don't have a problem with giving up some of their anonymity and/or privacy when it makes sense to protect the common good. What people do have a very large problem with is giving that information to the government, because the government is composed of people who will not just use that information to protect the people, but also to persecute the people who do not act the way the people in charge would like people to act. In addition, the government is not accountable to anyone if they misuse that information, so they have no incentive not to abuse it. The government was founded with branches and a balance of power because the founders knew government could not be trusted, and every subsequent generation of our government has validated that hypothesis. As long as that problem persists unsolved, privacy will be absolutely essential for the people to fight to preserve.

A slow awakening?

[NonCow]

I'll toss a second thought into this mix.
Maybe this is good in a very subtle way. Perhaps if the good US cictizens taste the medicine that their government has comfortably dispensed to the third world for the last half-century, then they might extend their outrage beyond merely "this hurts us" to "so, this is why we are thought of so poorly".

(Citing Talking Heads, melodramatically) perhaps one day we might hear the US cry:
"And you may ask yourself
well, how did I get here? ...
(Letting the days go by) ...
And you may tell yourself:
This is not my beautiful house! ...
My God! What have I done?"

Wanted: Common Sense & Tom Paine

[objectwizard42]

These are the times that try mens souls. Can we design, engineer, and realize technology that makes us more of the best of what we are, and less of the worst? Our government wants to eliminate privacy by suggesting a difference between privacy and anonymity. How absurd. It is the red herring of our Orwellian age. Those who exchange liberty for security deserve neither - B. Franklin Security is not a natural state of being. - H. Keller WTF?! - This should be the official slashdot response to this story. OW42

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Intrinsic]

The Bush administration has shit all over the Constitution and this country. They have committed treason.

Actually its the corporations that put him into power that we should be focusing on. He is just the fall guy for a policy created by organizations that have only one rule, maximize profits for shareholders. Dont shoot the messenger. Now im not saying let him off the hook, im just saying that people are focusing there energy in the wrong place and its preventing corporations from having to take responsibility for their actions.

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[iminplaya]

The Bush administration has shit all over the Constitution and this country.

I would have to say that we put it there so he wouldn't get any on the carpet. Never once did we rub his nose in it. Or put him outside.

Privacy != Annonimity

[newgalactic]

Holy 1984 moment. Did that guy actually say that "Privacy" is defined as governments and businesses safeguarding information from outside sources? And that the word "Privacy" we've all grown up to understand is actually "Anonymity"? That's a move straight out of 1984, redefining words to get inconvenient ideas (freedom, privacy, accountability) out of the citizens consciousness. Here's the definition of "privacy" according to Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privacy Notice, it makes no mention of governments or company's. Here's to that definition never changing.

Kerr the supervisor of Carnivore

[rfbeck]

I just dug up that Kerr was the supervisor on the FBI's Carnivore program while he was Assistant FBI director.
See http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/06/carnivore.hearing/

I don't disagree

[Infonaut]

I wrote: Anyway, the courts have acknowledged that this is an implicit, rather than explicit right.

You wrote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It's an implicit right, the parameters of which have been defined by the courts. In defining implicit rights, the courts have attempted to ensure that they will not get trampled on account of not being explicitly defined in the Constitution. I submit that those rights not defined in the Constitution are constantly under attack, and sometimes as a practical matter they need to be defined in order to delineate those rights held by the people.

Whew. Saved.

[Infonaut]

You're the sort of person for whom the Bill of Rights was added, because you simply don't understand the concept.

Gee, thanks for enlightening me. I appreciate your insights into my cognitive abilities, too.

Pushing the right buttons

[Infonaut]

It seems I've hit two of the most sensitive issues on Slashdot: Privacy and the Libertarian Impulse.

You can't question unbridled privacy rights on Slashdot, even as a rhetorical exercise.

You can't question the Libertarian Impulse on Slashdot, at least when referring to Google. Government wields force and is dangerous. Enormously wealthy and powerful public corporation driven solely by profit motive doesn't wield force and is therefore non-dangerous. Simple, binary logic, but it seems to work for many folks.

Google has not repeatedly proven itself untrustwor

[HiThere]

Google has not repeatedly proven itself untrustwory.
The US govt. has.

Therefore Google is more trusted than the US govt.

Do I trust Google without reservations? No. I wouldn't use Google for my data storage center. I don't put my e-mail on Google (or Yahoo, or Hotmail, or...).

This isn't quite privacy, but it's related. I don't trust remotely changable information to not be remotely changed to suite political or economic convenience. And I don't trust what they say about me to be honest, either, but I can't do much about that. Telling the truth never has much effect when you're speaking to someone with an agenda.

Some amount of risk acceptance is necessary. Risks don't go away just because you don't pay attention to them. But that's no reason to feed the monster.

This "privacy advice" is coming from someone speaking for a particularly untrustworthy government, but I wouldn't have trusted Clinton with my information either, and I won't trust the next one either. The government has an agenda, and it's only peripherally related to the purposes of the citizenry. This is true of all branches, but it's most true of the executive, and least true of the judicial. Something about running for office seems to instill corruption into the heart of political candidates. (This was always true, but the FCC decision that stations didn't need to provide equal access to electoral candidates really cranked up the level of corruption.)

uhh it came from somthingawful forums

[Anonymous Coward]

a place where a bunch of suicidal, fucktard murderous buttfuckers hang out..

Uh no

[Ranger]

You work for us Mr. Kerr. I find it very un-American to even suggest that. The right to privacy is patriotic.

Can someone explain to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a father of two small children, can somebody please explain to me, in terms that make sense to me, what all the fuss is about our President's attempts to secure our nation? All I can find is rhetoric about freedom and privacy and the constitution, but the bottom line is that if a terrorist breaks into my house and rapes and kills my children, what good is my freedom of speech?

My primary concern is the safety of my family. Yes, I would like them to grow up in a free country, but I don't personally feel any less free than I did four years ago. Yes, I now have to give my driver's license to get a bank account, and it takes an extra hour at the airport, but by and large the alleged loss of freedom has, to me, been a perfectly reasonable trade for how much safer we are.

The constitution was written three hundred years ago in a completely different world. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's perfect. The world has changed, and maybe - just MAYBE - government needs to change along with it. Terrorists don't care about the bill of rights. Maybe the police state everyone's so afraid of isn't such a bad idea of it means not getting killed by terrorists?

Re:Can someone explain to me...

[NeverVotedBush]

Three points, moron:

What if the "terrorist" that broke into your house and raped your wife and children was a government official? What if that same government official moved to silence you when you tried to press charges against him? What if that government official had you hauled off and locked up without due process, without right to see an attorney, without charges, and without ever being able to have a trial? Before you answer, I hope you realize that there are quite a few people, labelled as terrorists, that are locked up under these same conditions. The government has not made any case against them.

How much safer are we? Do you not realize that the Bush administration's war on "terra" has only strengthened radical Islam, strengthened Al Qaeda, destabilized countries like Pakistan (which have majority Muslim populations, missiles, and nukes), led directly to the "election" of Mahmood Amidinijad and the re-radicalization of Iran. If you think we are safer now than we were even on 9/11 itself, you are sadly mistaken and have your head firmly wedged between your butt cheeks.

The Constitution (it is a proper noun, moron) was written long ago - true. However, it is a dman good blueprint for how a free society is managed. If anything, the fault with the Constitution is that it doesn't explicitly call what George W. Bush and company are doing as treason and specify the punishment. Of course, all it would take would be another uncontitutional "signing statement" to be done with that item, just like all of his other ones, but at least people like you might actually sit up and take notice when he violated that particular statute.

You are right about one thing, though. Terrirsts don't care about the Bill of Rights. But then neither does George Bush. How about a police state where you get killed by your own police? Does that work for you?

Re:Can someone explain to me...

[NeverVotedBush]

And if you care so much about your children, do you not care that in the name of "fightin' terra'", George Bush has decided for them that they will be saddled with a crippling National debt? Do you not care that virtually nothing has been done to combat the real threat to their survival - literally - doing something/anything to combat global warming? Do you not care that their energy future is one of dwindling and unstable fossil fuels and succulent targets for "terrists" -- nuclear power plants?

Are your children growing up in a free country? Really? With "free speech zones" that violate their free speech? With everything they do or say online tracked and matched to them and a liability to them if those in power disagree? Without the guarantees of legitimate elections free from wholesale tampering? How about the ability to just live their peaceful happy lives? See that anywhere in here?

This is the future you are endorsing for your children. Enjoy.

Re:Can someone explain to me...

[NeverVotedBush]

And realize that the National debt, that the Bush administration has almost doubled, means that your children will have a lower quality education, lower quality lives, lower quality health care, lower quality roads, lower quality air, lower quality water, lower quality food, lower quality opportunities, and basically lower quality everything.

All in the name of fighting "terra".

I have news for you, bud. People like you, George Bush, and Donald Kerr, are exactly what the terrorists want to happen to us. You destroy this country from the inside thinking you are doing it a favor.

You aren't. You are playing right into their hands.

Re:Can someone explain to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not any safer. All of the foreign terrorists attacking America had valid ID and could pass those checkpoints with ease. You have given up your freedom for false security as forewarned by Benjamin Franklin. You have become a police state the USSR would have been jealous of, and all for nothing. If you don't like the constitution of America and the free society founded from those noble ideals maybe - just MAYBE - you should fuck off to Cuba.

Re:Can someone explain to me...

[MightyMartian]

ON the off chance that you're just a mindless retard, as opposed to a troll:

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin.

Look, you mindless toolbag of horsecrap, governments throughout history have used "We're keeping you safe" as the vanguard of attacks on liberty. Governments must never be trusted, must always be kept in check, and must always be limited in their scope. My privacy is my inherent right, and if the politicians want access to it, they have to go to courts. Anything else is tyranny.

Re:Can someone explain to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP was naive, but your response was that of a cocksucking, dogfucking nuclear asshole who deserves a 4x4 upside the head with the force imparted by an F5 tornado. What's the point? You really expect to educate people with that sort of scummy, ass licking approach, you worthless sack of pigshit? Fucking die. People like you are not helping the issue, and are only going to trun more people toward the authoritarian's POV. Seriously. Fucking kill yourself. YOU ARE NOT FUCKING HELPING!!!! Vacuumheads like you are just playing into the government's hand, you DUMB SHIT!

Re:Can someone explain to me...

[MightyMartian]

You had a point, you pointless AC?

Where is the tip-over point?

[Wylfing]

I detect -- and feel -- a tremendous amount of political outrage lately. Where is the tip-over point where this bubbles up into a political candidate who stands against these atrocities? Failing that, where is the tip-over point where we hold mass protests? Failing that, where is the tip-over point where we shoot these fuckers in the head? (That is in fact our final solution as outlined in the Constitution.)

Re:first fisting post!

[mikael]

Is there a slashdot popularity chart - listing the number of times every time the name of a famous person has turned up?

Let's Cut to the Chase

[tom's a-cold]

How can we get this slimeball fired? Who do you have to write to? Who do you need to pester? Which committees in the Congress oversee this kind of thing?

And yeah, I know, the Dems are the kind of watchdogs that keep their teeth in a glass in the bathroom. But with enough prodding, maybe they'll at least whine a bit.

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr."

Great! We should give Kerr a dose of his own medicine by posting about how "Donald Kerr likes having sex with a sheep", "Donald Kerr was arrested for soliciting sex in a public washroom", "Donald Kerr was indicted for embezzling $5 million dollars", "Donald Kerr was convicted of sexually assaulting an 82-year-old woman after tazering her", "Donald Kerr helped funnel funds to Al-Quaida", "Donald Kerr was found wandering naked in a local park, claiming to have been abducted by aliens, who then probed his body", "Donald Kerr is a vocal proponent of scientology", "Donald Kerr is president of the Washington Brittney Speares fan club", "Donald Kerr controls a bot-net of 250,000 PCs", "Donald Kerr accepted 'gifts' of $4.5m from Microsoft", "Donald Kerr wants to track people via bluetooth".

After all, Google is now a "good source" for Donald Kerr.

(Note to the humour-impaired - the above is fair comment satire directed at a public officials' political policy statements, and in no way is an endorsement of Mr. Kerr's positions on privacy OR sex with a sheep)

Hey, what's this Donald Kerr having sex with sheep about? Donald Kerr helped funnel funds to Al-Quaida?

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush has managed to do all of this and no face no problems, but if the POTUS receives a BJ from one of his staff, he can get impeached?? Or was the problem that Bill lied about the event. 8)
Like I tell my son, getting caught in a lie covering up something you've done is worse than just admitting you've done something wrong 8)
(and in Bush's case, then just making it legal and retrospective anyway.)

Re:We do need to redefine privacy - with cryptogra

[man_ls]

HTTPS only works for protecting against people snooping in real-time on things like wireless networks or broadcast domains; there already exist available network firewall devices which (by virtue of the fact that they can see both sides of the HTTPS setup at once) can see inside of HTTPS packets as they're flying by and analyze their content just like anything else.

I bet the NSA can afford a couple of those.

Anonymity is essential.

[PhxBlue]

Two words: secret ballot.

Re:We do need to redefine privacy - with cryptogra

[vkg]

Hm, excuse me, but that sounds like total horse****. In HTTPS, you have a public key for the server, and use it to perform an exchange of a symmetric key. HTTPS is secure even if you can see every byte exchanged between the two devices, that's the point.

We are gathering

[lowell]

We are gathering

Reciprocity

[deblau]

I will trust the government with my secrets when they trust me with theirs.

Founding words

[bitmonki]

There seems to be an increasingly accepted view in America that the 'founding words' of our esteemed Founders (women most certainly included) are some sort of 'ideal' to be striven for.

Nothing could be further from the truth -- the Declaration, Constitution, et. al. are practical recipes, written by experienced and reflective authors, a group of people that had personally suffered and/or witnessed the murders, intrusions, seizures, violations, wrongs, indignities and humiliations the Documents are meant prevent. This most certainly includes the right to keep private from the "state" communications between individuals.

(Just who the fuck does this current government think they are, anyway? They were too cowardly to go to the original site for their own first "inauguration" (thats another story) because of the protesters, and its been all downhill since that day. They haven't looked a protester in the eyes since, the gutless wonders, instead they spend mass quantities of cash avoiding them and locking them out of public forums. Heaven forbid that they actually tried to match wits with one.)

I also find the political (for lack of a better word) similarities between then and now ironic, to say the least. The American Revolution was pretty much entirely caused by years of increasing economic and physical depredation, abuse and exploitation by the dominant trans-national "entity" of the day, the British East India Company, an entity that at times employed its own military force, established its own governments, etc.

Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown. Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. (British East India Company, wikipedia.org).

Sound anything like whats happening with the oil in Iraq?

But actually, my favorite part is that smugglers played such a large part in early American history. Dunno why, but that appeals to me sooooooo much. :)

Interesting, too, that lobbyists played a part in the run up to the American Revolution:

The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 angered colonists regarding British decisions on taxing the colonies despite a lack of representation in the Westminster Parliament. One of the protesters was John Hancock. In 1768, Hancock's ship Liberty was seized by customs officials, and he was charged with smuggling. He was defended by John Adams, and the charges were eventually dropped. However, Hancock later faced several hundred more indictments.

Hancock organized a boycott of tea from China sold by the British East India Company, whose sales in the colonies then fell from 320,000 pounds (145,000 kg) to 520 pounds (240 kg). By 1773, the company had large debts, huge stocks of tea in its warehouses and no prospect of selling it because smugglers, such as Hancock, were importing tea without paying import taxes. The British government passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea to the colonies directly and without "payment of any customs or duties whatsoever" in Britain, instead paying the much lower American duty. This tax break allowed the East India Company to sell for lower prices than those offered by the colonial merchants and smugglers.

American colonists, particularly the we

Re:Founding words

[postbigbang]

You can try and co-opt and rationalize ideas in any way you want in the same way you're entitled to your opinions, and not your facts. No one claims we're all saints, or conversely, sinners. Instead, we're just human.

In that humanity, we can strive for ideals. Some are more practically achieved than others. Some need the privacy, and even the veil of anonymity.

Consider that the Federalist Papers were written anonymously. And some of the 'founding fathers' were clearly stinkers.

Consider that the right to freely assemble is a good one, and to do so with anonymity is all the better. No one needs to feel as though there's someone breathing down their neck or looking over their shoulder. We shouldn't have to justify our actions to anyone but civility and those of OUR choice.

People have fought and died for these principles, some foolishly, and others with laudable zeal. The questionable actions of a few aren't justification for the damnation of the ideals many people follow. The logic doesn't really apply.

Awesome

[cgenman]

Isn't it great how with one little change of definition, "privacy" can now mean "we keep private everything we know about you, which is everything."

This guy really should be fired. Out of a cannon. At a wall.

Re:Awesome

[rtb61]

No. This guy should have the whole of his life, including the lives of his family made public knowledge. Every breath, every twitch, and every bowel movement. If he is so wrapped up in the lie that every man and his dog is entitled to do a full psychological break down of you for marketing purposes and future psychological marketing manipulation, let him and his family feel the full sting of complete public exposure.

The thing with privacy is, if you want to retain any part of your privacy, you simply have to fight tool and nail to retain it all, otherwise some of the most weasley, greedy, anal, privacy invasive freaks (don't forget their are real actual individuals behind all those privacy invasive moves and ideas) will go prying into every part of your life and the lives of your family, they can get away with.

There is no stage in your life when you would accept that kind of invasiveness from you neighbors, they weird people down the street, the control freak thug in uniform, so why the fuck should you accept it from a for profit marketing corporation, whose express reason for doing so is to psychologically manipulate your and your families purchasing decisions (seriously what do you think targeted marketing really means).

Let anybody including the CEO's, majority share holders and politicians who promote the lack of privacy surrender all of theirs first.

Re:Awesome

[ShieldW0lf]

No. This guy should have the whole of his life, including the lives of his family made public knowledge. Every breath, every twitch, and every bowel movement. If he is so wrapped up in the lie that every man and his dog is entitled to do a full psychological break down of you for marketing purposes and future psychological marketing manipulation, let him and his family feel the full sting of complete public exposure.

Sounds like a great way to get rid of hypocrisy. Lets do it to everyone, all at once. Who do I vote for?

Re:Awesome

[mbrod]

I was watching the movie The Lives of Others a few weeks back. Summary of the movie is it details East Germany spying on its own population after the end of WWII when the Communist party there was taking full control. They were monitoring everyone, but the catch was they used this information in really nasty ways. Bringing people in and interrogating them for 48 hours straight, arresting people, sending them for "training" for weeks on end if unruly. This all got me to thinking and asking the question "what if they didn't do the nasty things?". Because if they didn't do the nasty things a lot people, probably nearly all, would not have really done anything about the monitoring and surveillance.

This is basically what this guy is saying. We will monitor everything and know everything about you just not come to your house and arrest you because of it. Trust us because we are nice.

Well in my opinion the United States made it a very long time as a country without any intelligence, we could do just fine without them again if we have to.

Re:Awesome

[CarpetShark]

Isn't it great how with one little change of definition, "privacy" can now mean "we keep private everything we know about you, which is everything."

This guy really should be fired. Out of a cannon. At a wall.

That's possibly the best comment I've read on slashdot in a LONG time.

I also find it interesting how they're trying to merge the concepts of privacy and anonymity, and then reject one, as if anonymity was just an accident that has come along with privacy up to now. It's not. It's a valuable, inalieable right, just like privacy.

What's a mayer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would certainly hope that any real mayor could actually spell it so that reference on Google probably isn't you.

I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still struggling with the question of whats worse.

Bulk spying on united states citizens for no cause - unquestionably a violation of our constitution.

Or the push for effective circumvention of the judicial branch of our government?

Isn't this a little like yanking all congestion control, checksums and retransmission logic from RFC 793 and still expecting the Internet to work?

Either way Americans should reconcider the continued employment of Donald Kerr :)

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[tomhudson]

You can read more about Donald Kerr's sex with sheep, as well as Donald Kerr caught on video drinking toilet water!, and Donald Kerr is Anna Nicole Smiths baby's daddy!

Theres also this latest Report: Car driven by naked man kills lawyer. Donald Kerr arrested!"

Washington - A speeding, out-of-control car driven by a naked man hit and killed a pedestrian and collided with another vehicle before finally coming to a stop, Washington authorities said Thursday.

The driver, Donald Kerr, of Washington, was pulled out of the car by police following the 10:50 a.m. Wednesday incident, said William Smith Jr., a spokesman for the Washington district attorney's office.

The Washington Daily News reported family members said Kerr had been acting strangely and shouted, "The demons are coming! The demons are trying to get (me)!" shortly before driving off in the car... developing story

so are we going to have to sign our ballots now?

[DragonTHC]

this is complete and total bullshit. It is illegal. It is anti-American. It is wrong. Americans must dissent. it is the only patriotic thing to do.

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the majority of the elected officials who have a duty to look into these matters will not do it. Quite a few of these elected officials were elected last year to do something about all of this, but they have only stalemated or completely thrown out any attempt at doing something. The majority of elected officials are currently in on the abuses and will not do anything to stop them.

They need to be kicked out of office, but way too many of them are never challenged in their next election or they are challenged by those that cannot get the word out enough.

Changing the President is good, but you still need to change all those elected officials that allowed him to get away with it.

Say what?

[fudgefactor7]

I'd much rather "reconsider" the current occupants of our public trust/government. If we can't trust them, we shouldn't have them.

What's next?

[r_jensen11]

The neo-cons are going to find a way to discover that I voted for a non-neo-con? Or that I voted for a member of the Green Party for a parks position because they wanted to increase funding for parks instead of further limit the parks' hours?

I smell a revolution. It smells like Doritos and KFC. Unfortunately, this revolution will result in skyrocketing stock values of Yum! Brands, Inc. and PepsiCo, Inc, and a void of political action.

Kerr, kiss my...

[oDDmON oUT]

This prig exemplifies the legacy of 8 years of Republican paternalism, and the sooner the US is shed of them better off both it and the world will be.

In unrelated news: The Onion reports Kerr is wetting his pants about UN criticiam of the US "owning the internet", not because the US will keep information free, but because it wound render that neat little AT&T ["Your World Delivered®"] room obsolete.

A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[j_f_chamblee]

Tom,

You are flamebaiting troll of a Eurotrash snob and I have no idea how you were ever modded so high. But since I can't do anything about that, here are some things to remember:

1. Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 -- and that was prior to 9/11.

2. There were minor protests before the war in Afghanistan and serious protests leading up to the war in Iraq and beyond.

3. Many of the worst allegations regarding domestic civil-liberties infringements involving most U.S. citizens (i.e., the ones who weren't Muslim) didn't come out until after the 2004 election. Before that, the press was focused on such lovely things as Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay (which I grant you are no picnic either).

4. Take a moment and look across the channel at the United Kingdom. They ain't exactly having a civil-liberties hoe-down in England these days.

5. Treating Americans as a unitary group is just as stupid as it would be for people of any other nationality.

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[NeutronCowboy]

From a Eurotrash American, some counter points:

1. Irrelevant. He was elected, however barely.
2. The minor protests were retarded, and the larger protests are late to the party - not to mention, about the wrong problem. They're certainly no credit to America.
3. You're kidding, right? If you didn't get the idea that Bush was going to send the US down the shitter before 2004, you weren't paying attention.
4. Irrelevant. Pointing out someone else's problems is no way to advance the discussion.
5. Treating the majority of Americans as responsible for Bush's election, and therefore responsible for his crap, is the one thing you can do. Not only did people vote for him in 2000 (which was retarded, but forgivable), but more people voted for him in 2004! At that point, they're responsible for his decisions, and the decisions his administration makes.

So in short: if you voted for Bush twice, I'm holding you personally responsible for the way he is acting. Your parent poster might have said it differently, but it's not far off.

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[Quiet_Desperation]

flamebaiting troll of a Eurotrash snob and I have no idea how you were ever modded so high

Are you kidding? That's an automatic +10 mod around here. You need 6 mod downs just to make a visible dent.

Don't let it bother you. Islam will utterly pwn the EU within 20 years or less, and guys like the OP will be dead in an unmarked ditch.

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[gerrygerbil]

"2. There were minor protests before the war in Afghanistan and serious protests leading up to the war in Iraq and beyond."

Really? I must have missed that in the papers, then, because my strong impression was that there were consistently 90% pollings in favour of invading Iraq, that the Congress voted almost unanimously for war, other than one very brave senator who was subjected to abuse and death threats afterwards, and that there was toss-all public protest. Maybe there were mass demos, write-ins, and other protests, but they certainly weren't reported over this side of the Pond. Maybe you could give us Eurotrash a few details?

"4. Take a moment and look across the channel at the United Kingdom. They ain't exactly having a civil-liberties hoe-down in England these days. "

True enough, but then we are the 51st state of the USA and when the master says bark the poodle goes woof. Of course, the crackdown on freedom here under the pretext of a manufactured terrorist threat is not unrelated to the war in Iraq...

"Treating Americans as a unitary group is just as stupid as it would be for people of any other nationality."

True, but I think you can fairly interpret the "you" in the poster's original allegation about "you" failing to impeach Bush et al for, well, just about everything (treason, mass murder, corruption, destruction of the Constitution, to mention but a few), as meaning "you" the USA, or at least that bit of the US that's capable of impeachment - media, government, chattering classes.

The criticism that Clinton was nearly brought down over sexual shenanigans yet the unholy trinity of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, and their acolytes such as Perle and Wolfowitz, will escape scot-free for serious crimes against humanity within and outwith the US, is valid. That is a scandal, that the architects of a war that has killed 00s of 000s of Iraqi people will go into comfortable retirement and be lauded as 'world statesmen' when they finally publish their memoirs, as happened with Kissinger and even Tricky Dicky Nixon himself.

Gerry

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[Tom]

True, it's not as if nobody did anything.

It's that too few people do things, and what they do make no difference.

And no, I'm not treating americans as a group. I'm treating them as a sum total, because that's what determines how the country works. Saying "but look, I was against it" doesn't change anything.

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[mattpalmer1086]

I doubt it - politically we are very secular in Europe - much more so than in the US. A couple of thousand years of religious nutters in charge does that to you. Christianity is still the biggest religion by a long way - they just aren't as politically vocal as minority religions, as they have learned it doesn't get them anywhere. Religious freedom combined with a secular state are the way over here.

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[BrianGKUAC]

Have you risen up?

No.

You're to blame as well. So am I.

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[Quiet_Desperation]

Well, I was being mostly facetious. Mostly. :)

Sadly, Giuliani is hurting from his buddy being a criminal. I was pushing for him to win the primaries because the religious freaks have stated they will break off into their own party if he did, thus completely marginalizing them. But then I think even Pat "9/11 was God's punishment" Robertson was able to add 2 and 2 so he came out and supported Giuliani to head off a defection. Dammit!

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[mattpalmer1086]

It's so hard to tell if somone's joking or not sometimes :) We don't really wonder about the religious affiliation of most of our politicians too much (although if religions at all, most of those are probably Christian). Your politics seems big, bad and wierd to me, but maybe we're just less open about these things...

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[jafac]

as a proud Ameri-trash American (happy Veteran's Day y'all) -

1. Irrelevant. He was elected, however barely.

Agreed. As an America - I'm shocked, dismayed, appalled, that my countrymen, which I pay assloads of tax-money to educate, by the way, were fucking stupid enough to trust another Bush after his father - and after Bush Jr's record as Texas Gov (or after his record as the owner of the Texas Rangers, or after his record as CEO of Harkin Oil, or after his TANG record - oh yeah, that wasn't quite available now was it? Oh, what about his criminal record? Jeez, people!)

2. The minor protests were retarded, and the larger protests are late to the party - not to mention, about the wrong problem. They're certainly no credit to America.

In defense of my bovine countrymen; we're fat, dumb, and happy. We don't like being tear-gassed, and we don't like being clubbed by police, we'd rather stay at home and watch the police gas and club hippies. (and we'd hate to have to accept the fact that those hippies were actually fighting for our rights - we'd rather live in the fantasy world that God is on our side, and wants us to eat steak every day, and drive huge trucks that get 5 MPG - because God loves us more than he loves people in other countries - isn't that a more compelling belief?) (. . . for a retard?)

3. You're kidding, right? If you didn't get the idea that Bush was going to send the US down the shitter before 2004, you weren't paying attention.

We weren't paying attention in 2000. We weren't paying attention in 1992 either, or in 1988, or in 1984, or in 1980. It was a much more compelling story to think that we could "Borrow our way to prosperity." Because that was Capitalism, and God loves Capitalists, and you don't want to piss off God, right?. . . . . .

4. Irrelevant. Pointing out someone else's problems is no way to advance the discussion.

True - but is a great way to deflect the discussion from one's own problems!

5. Treating the majority of Americans as responsible for Bush's election, and therefore responsible for his crap, is the one thing you can do. Not only did people vote for him in 2000 (which was retarded, but forgivable), but more people voted for him in 2004! At that point, they're responsible for his decisions, and the decisions his administration makes.

2000 is not really forgivable. America will pay for these sins, because, we; as a nation, chose to believe in some of the most convenient, bald-faced fairy tales - ones that people have fallen for over and over for thousands (and more?) of years. Every time an empire falls, you see this happen. It ain't pretty. It's sad to see it happen to my beloved country. But I believe that, fundamentally, our history, our core beliefs, and our values, will all stand, through whatever is coming - and if we survive, as a nation, maybe we'll learn something, and maybe we'll come out of this a bit less arrogant. I think that, at it's heart, the process that an empire goes through in the rise of fascism, is a process of learning limits, and a process of re-setting expectations, and taming arrogance.

Looking at Germany today (or Japan) - from a political stance, and a viewpoint of national character - with their history, they have a lot to live down. Maybe that history will fade as the last survivors from that era die-off. (as American history of the Civil War and the shame of slavery has faded. . . ) - but with how Germans, and Japanese, are proud of their country, and yet, shamed by its past - maybe America will one day come to that point. Who knows?

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000

Yes, but Bush+Gore sure did, and by a humungous margin. And then in 2004 Bush+Kerry won a landslide too.

America votes against American interests, overwhelmingly.

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[Kazoo the Clown]

Actually, the majority of eligible Americans didn't vote AT ALL in either the 2000 or 2004 election. The idea of a "popular vote" has essentially become a vote only by those frightened or pissed-off enough to actually go to the polls. Consequently, what America has is the leaders you would expect it to have under those circumstances. And until these leaders screw up enough to start threatening those non-voters ability to pick up a 6-pack, order a pizza and watch TV, things aren't gonna change. But take heart, at the rate they're going at it, you won't have to wait much longer...

Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[j_f_chamblee]

True, it's not as if nobody did anything.

HA! Ok, now I'm happy. I take back the Eurotrash snob bit. My apologies. Although you really can spark a lot of good discussion by coming off as a complete jerk. Who knew?

It's that too few people do things, and what they do make no difference.

Again, agreed.

And no, I'm not treating americans as a group. I'm treating them as a sum total, because that's what determines how the country works.

Ok, now here I must disagree. Sum totals may be how smaller countries with long shared histories and relatively more linguistic and cultural homogeneity work. But, historically, that has not been how America "works." The various regions and factions have contributed to a pluralism and, frankly, a level of dis-organization and inefficiency that, until recently, played a major role in why we were perceived as having so much freedom. Of course, this same factionalism contributed things like southern segregation, etc., but, overall, it worked in our favor. The problem now is that media consolidation some kind of willful ignorance that I truly do not understand is making it harder and harder for the factionalists to be effective in bringing about change.

On the one hand, I agree with a lot of the specific critiques about what is happening in this country and appalled that we are now supposed consider anonymity as separate from privacy. On the other, I am proud of our combative, brawling, factionalist past and am happy to wade in against any goldanged ferner (that's "foreigner," for you non-Southerners) with the gall to call me a shithead just because I'm an American.

lol

[nanowired]

Americans tell Government Official to rethink his job.

The Tree of Liberty

[katana0182]

I fear that Caesar's army is approaching the Rubicon, as anonymity turns into "Privacy"...
Separation of Power turns into the "Unitary Executive"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#The_George_W._Bush_administration
Prisoners of War turn into "Unlawful Enemy Combatants"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_enemy_combatants#2001_Presidential_military_order
Torture becomes narrowly defined as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
Justice for all succumbs to the "State Secrets Privilege"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/elmasri_order_granting_motion_dismiss_051206.pdf
As Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html
It was true when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, it was true in the Civil War, it was true in the Second World War, and perhaps the time is coming when it will be true again.
You might want to think about which side you're going to be on.

Privacy is already dead.... good for them...

[blahplusplus]

I have to say that anyone who hopes to keep onto the concept of privacy is in for a big shock as technology moves forward, at some point we will know everything about everyone, and the idea of privacy will be a feral relic of our animal heritage.

We should strive to become less animal, wanting privacy means you're trying to be territorial and passive-aggressive, (not in ALL instances) but in many.

This is not to say people don't need their personal space, or at least ILLUSIONS of privacy, but with the technology being developed today that exists at airports and whatnot and into the future, I have no doubt we will be able to see through walls sometime soon and it will slowly penetrate consumer electronics. It will be impossible to stop the gods of commerce in their quest for profit.

The only thing we can do now, is turn our technological eyes and erase the privacy of the gods of commerce.

Re:Privacy is already dead.... good for them...

[geekoid]

I agree, stop keeping secrets.
BTW, please tell me you SSN, CC#, secret word used for your children, your children's schedule, your schedule, all you logins/password with a list of site, you mothers maiden name, your phone number, address, blood type, and dietary habits.

What's that? you want that information to be private?

Re:Privacy is already dead.... good for them...

[blahplusplus]

Notice I said "NOT IN ALL INSTANCES"... and I said going forward it would be harder and harder to keep privacy.

Green-card holder is made out of what? ... straw!

[Anonymous Coward]

The article:
"Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that he finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are 'perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service provider) who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data.'"

This green-card holder is both male and made out of straw...

What Kerr should be trying to explain is _why_ I should trust his agency more than some ISP employee who doesn't know who I am and who definitely isn't storing every bit of information I generate indefinitely. Also the green-card holder doesn't have the right, or likely even the ability, to forceably abduct me, or to interrogate, torture, and imprison me should something I write, even if it's not addressed to him, be construed as possibly hostile.

Donald Kerr is a traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

He is in treason against America to destroy our rights. He is a traitor, plain and simple. He makes no bones about his wanting to destroy the United States and enslave the American people. - anon

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[dbIII]

Treason is playing chess against a Russian and winning. Selling weapons to a declared enemy (post-revolution Iran) and doing a bit of embezzlement on the side is Patriotism.

I don't think that word means what you think...

[chainLynx]

"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr.

Clearly, if you know someone's name well enough to type it into the Google query box, that person is NOT ANONYMOUS. Idiot. This article might set the record for fallacies in one article.

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizens don't get to vote on impeachment. Our congresscritters do. They scare us, too.

Fewer than 30% of the citizens supported impeaching Clinton. Over 50% of citizens support impeaching Bush.

Short of another violent revolution, what do you recommend?

CITIZEN RFBECK, REPORT TO INFORMATION RETRIEVAL

[StefanJ]

Speak untruth inner party member Kerr. Doubleplus ungood.

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[jagdish]

"Donald Kerr is president of the Washington Brittney Speares fan club"

That alone should be a good reason to ostracize him from society. Permanently.

Thank God for the screen writers' strike!

[StefanJ]

With only sucky unscripted Reality TV shows for distraction, people may actually start reading the news and getting angry.

Schneier Facts

[jagdish]

To anyone who says, "If you're not guilty, you have nothing to hide", Bruce Schneier asks for their internet search history.

From Blogistan:

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

People detained without trial...governments collecting private domestic communication information about citizens from corporations...the tragic example of how a government could use that shit against the people... and the terrifying fact that we are considering giving immunity to companies that supply this government with information about citizens when Congress has already turned a blind eye towards the detention of people indefinitely.

So...ummm, eventually corporations will supply the government with information about the masses and the government will be able to detain us at will. Makes that China Yahooian agreement look fair and balanced, doesn't it?

Catch thy knee before it jerks and do not sleep.

Re:From Blogistan:

[Mi5ke561]

I can't disagree there. Gothe once noted that if you fight a dragon for too long, you're doomed eventually to become one. Here in the US, we've become what we were trying to overcome. And the sad irony of the situation is that few see it.

Re:From Blogistan:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nietzsche, not Goethe. "He who fights with monsters should see to it that he does not become one. If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes back into you".

Frankly, I'd like more people in the government to wear their totalitarianism on their sleeve as Kerr does. At least people can see it for what it is.

Re:first fisting post!

[ozmanjusri]

Yes.

Of course, it only makes sense when you understand "Anonymous Coward" is a pseudonym for Congressman.

No it isn't

[SmallFurryCreature]

It isn't anonymous OR private that I see my doctor, the insurance company knows, the people in the waiting room know. So I am NOT anonymous, nor private about visiting the doctor.

The talk with the doctor isn't anonymous, he can see me, he knows who I am, he got my details on the chart in front of him. It is however assumed to be private, the doctor will NOT share the information with the next patient, even though that patients knows I saw that doctor.

In the same way the insurance company knows what drugs have been prescribed, no anonimty involved but they are still supposed to respect my privacy.

Slashdot knows my ip, I am not anonymous to them, yet they are supposed to keep it private.

Being anonymous is rare. Is voting anonymous? NO. They know who voted and who didn't in most systems. They need to know, to avoid people voting more then once, but your vote itself is anonymous, but NOT oddly enough private (after all, the whole point of voting is to let it be known).

Being anonymous is important for things that could really hurt you, like seeing a doctor about a sexual disease. There are special setups in most countries for this. But oddly enough privacy is given up then, you do not know why I see my regular GP, you can have a bloody guess why I go to a VD clinic.

Many things can't work with anonimity, but we require privacy nonetheless.

I really don't have an answer for how to deal with this in our changing world. As voters we on the one hand seem to want our goverments to "protect" us, but on the other hand we are loath for anything that affects us.

Dangerous driving is in holland one of the top irritations, but speed camera's are just as often seen as one of the great satan's. How does this reconcile? Could it be that voters speak with split tongue? What I really think people want is that the state goes after wrong doers, just as long as the wrong doers ain't them.

privacy

[falconwolf]

It isn't anonymous OR private that I see my doctor, the insurance company knows, the people in the waiting room know. So I am NOT anonymous, nor private about visiting the doctor.

Insurance is paying for the visit and it's only right they know what they are paying for. Now if you are willing to pay out of pocket then insurance has no need to know, nor should they. And, even if those in the waiting room go with you into the exam room, more than likely they don't know who you are therefore you are anonymous.

Being anonymous is rare. Is voting anonymous? NO. They know who voted and who didn't in most systems.

But they don't know who specific people vote for, unless they say who the vote for. Actually in the US they are prevented from giving voters a record of their votes just for this reason, nobody can force a voter to vote in a specific way. If receipts were given out an employer say could demand that employees vote for specific candidates, or to vote against them. With no receipt employers don't know how a voter voted.

As voters we on the one hand seem to want our goverments to "protect" us, but on the other hand we are loath for anything that affects us.

You might, and too many others do, but not me. I want less government not more, historically governments have proven to be the greatest terrorists and the greatest threat to freedom and liberty, whether it be NAZI Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or what's his name in Rwanda. Heck, in the US more are killed in accidents every year than all of the US citizens who've been killed by terrorists. Where's the outrage over these deaths?

Dangerous driving is in holland one of the top irritations, but speed camera's are just as often seen as one of the great satan's. How does this reconcile? Could it be that voters speak with split tongue? What I really think people want is that the state goes after wrong doers, just as long as the wrong doers ain't them.

I oppose all traffic cameras that can record license plates or those in the cars, heck even pedestrians. The only legitimate purpose for them is for traffic control such as controlling traffic lights on busy intersections. And maybe, though it's a stretch, to monitor for accidents. I was shocked and dismayed when I went to Germany in the early 1980s and learned they were using cameras to issue tickets. Though the autobahns outside of cities had no speed limits, speed limits on city streets were strictly enforced. You might speed in a city, or loan your car to someone else who speeds, and think you got away with it. But then later you can get a ticket in the mail with the details of when and where the violation took place captured on camera. If you don't pay the ticket on tyme, even if you can prove you were somewhere else and couldn't have been driving when and where the ticket said, you could loose your license to drive.

On the other hand I found it refreshing that parents could order wine for their children while eating out. That was frowned on if not illegal in the US.

Falcon

Re:privacy

[E 99]

I didn't suggest that the concept of privacy or the desire for it was invented in the 60s. What I believe was invented in the 60s was the idea that information existing within an "expectation of privacy" was automatically excluded from criminal investigators without court intervention.

Re:privacy

[falconwolf]

I didn't suggest that the concept of privacy or the desire for it was invented in the 60s. What I believe was invented in the 60s was the idea that information existing within an "expectation of privacy" was automatically excluded from criminal investigators without court intervention.

Ok.

Falcon

Disgusting

[jandersen]

We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy

This is probably the most disgusting piece of sleazy hypocrisy I have seen come out of any of the foul orifices of any government official for a long time. What he is saying is something like 'We redefine privacy to mean that only the government and a bunch of companies know everything about you' - IOW 'We don't care about your perceived rights - here suck on this dummy'.

I am no privacy and anonymity fanatic, but at the end of the day, privacy has to mean at least that: 'privacy - the right to have secrets'. There are many cases where it may make sense to share your personal information with others, but the choice should always be yours, and nobody else should have a legal right to know against your will. The right to privacy is a simple consequence of the right to self-determination - the right to make your own decisions. If we lose that, what have we got left?

Revolution NOW!

[CristalShandaLear]

Not long ago, in another thread someone asked the question: What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms? My reply: We passed that threshold long ago. I do not obsess about what I am modded however when I was looking over some past journal entries I noticed that this comment had been marked neither up nor down, neither troll nor interesting, neither wheat nor chaff. It was merely left alone. We are already living in tyranny. We are cowed by our government and we are afraid. They should be afraid of the people but they are not. And there are so may questions... Is anyone really considering the unthinkable? Have a we reached the point where diplomacy between the American people and the government is nonexistent? Has our government really reached the point of no return where a revisit to 1776 is inevitable? Will we be thrown into Gitmo or some other secret prison for even publicly typing such a thought as considering revolution against the current government? Will it take an armed citizenry? Are we even an armed citizenry anymore? What about out all those gun laws? I suspect that among the Slashdot crowd, more of us own iPhones than weapons. Oh, I'm sure there will be a few us who posture to the contrary about the weapons we've owned and the training we've had, but even I, who was once in the army, own not a single firearm. If the revolution began today, I would not be ready. Would you? What revolution? The real revolution. Not just of thoughts and ideas and industrialism and technology. The one that protects our rights to those things; and our right to have our lives bettered by them, not controlled by them. Rights that have been encroached on for far too long by every institution we've trusted from Government to Google. I say again that it is long past time. The only thing to do now, is take it underground and get ready. Soon. And if I never post again, then the NSA got me and it's really past time. Come help.

Trust in government?

[Loki_1929]

I trust my government as far as I can throw it. And frankly, I'd like to see just how far I can throw parts of my government, like this fellow quoted in the article.

privacy

[falconwolf]

The whole idea of "expectation of privacy" is purely an invention of the supreme court from the 1960s. It is in no way implied by the 4th amendment.

You may want to rethink this belief. In 1890 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis published their now famous article in the Harvard Law Review, entitled simply: "The Right to Privacy". Also though I haven't relocated it yet a USSC ruling in the early 1800s said that the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause included the right to anonymous political speech.

Falcon

Answer

[maroberts]

It must be one of the ingredients of mayer-naisse.

Just what we need

[flyneye]

Some bullshit artist from the "ministry of truth" redefining the language to suit government convenience.
My privacy means that if you stick your nose in my business uninvited,it's gonna get broken.This includes government clowns.
My privacy means that if you enter my home uninvited,without a legal warrant all in perfect order,you leave on your back with a hole in a major organ.
I swear it's getting to the time for another revolution.

Ron Paul

[falconwolf]

If he were elected, I'm not sure how much of his own agenda he'd be able to accomplish since he can only propose new legislation & veto things he disagrees with, but he could make it VERY difficult for Congress to pass things that there wasn't unanimous agreement about, and he wouldn't be giving the protection of the President's Office to those agents of the executive branch who are blatantly violating the Constitution.

The veto is anyone who wants to be president most powerful weapon. I'd love to see a president that would veto most of the bills passed by congress. In 2004 that's what Michael Badnarik promised. Congress can override vetoes but it isn't homogeneous enough to do it now. That would be a good sight to see, the federal government screeching to a halt.

Falcon

Ron Paul

[falconwolf]

That's rather like giving Jeffry Dahmer the keys to your house because you think he'd be an interesting interior decorator.

Your equation of Ron Paul with Dahmer reveals about you that it does Ron Paul. Paul is nothing like the serial murderer Dahmer.

Falcon

So we should just give up? I don't think so....

[Kodack]

"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won" This is typical psychological manipulation. Present someone with limited options that support your own desirable outcome.

Technically speaking "staying alive" isn't a fight that can be won either, we will all die some day. Does that mean we should seek death?

The nature of our relations with each other and the way we gather and share information are changing rapidly and it is difficult for people to keep up. That does not mean that we should just give up and let someone tag you and track you your entire life. We will find a way to balance information and privacy with the need to have information on each other and on everything else.

This is just your government wanting to step in and do what advertisers and spammers already do, track people and use that information for power and profit.

We need a smaller government, MUCH smaller government, that serves when needed, and fades into the woodwork when it is not. The powers that be are fighting to justify themselves and trick people into thinking we need them. We do need leadership but we don't need big brother to run every aspect of our lives. I for one would rather be free and make my own decisions than have some authoritative and conniving master make them for me.

Don't believe the hype, they are lying.

Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=donald+kerr+sex+with+sheep&btnG=Search

A bad definition is better than none

[hey!]

I have thought a great deal about this over the past several years; I've read many essays and books by philosophers and legal scholars on the topic of privacy. I've read judicial findings in both civil and constitutional law. I've come to this definition:

Privacy is the right of the individual to manage his affairs without unreasonable interference by outside parties, other than that which is an unavoidable consequence of his own choices.

A good definition doesn't necessarily lead to a clear solution in every case, but it should focus on the essential issue at stake. For me, privacy is about personal autonomy. All the other stuff around it, like anonymity, are tools that are useful in protecting autonomy.

Anonymity is often practically indispensable to privacy, but it is merely a tool. An anonymous ballot protects you from people who would use your voting information against you. Anonymity in this case isn't really very important itself. Non-secret ballots are often used where we believe that there is no chance of an individual's decision being improperly interfered with. However, many people would suffer things like employment discrimination based on their voting choices, so we have an anonymous ballot for public elections.

So, Mr. Kerr is right that anonymity really isn't that essential to privacy. However, we should beware of officials who want us to throw out a faulty definition of privacy without having a better one ready to replace it. It's a favorite tactic for those who want to be able to meddle freely.

A good definition of privacy can survive a loss of anonymity as a tool, but that leads in a direction the government does not want to go: transparency. It is enough, if you want to meddle, to be able to. You don't need to actually do anything, you just need a credible threat. When it comes to government collection of private information, free citizens demand ironclad guarantees of what the officials in their pay are up to.

If privacy means being able to escape unreasonable consequences of your choices, anonymity is a pretty damned good way to do it. It's impossible to beat, and nearly impossible to equal in its effectiveness. Giving us something nearly as good means giving us more access to the workings of government than is likely to happen in the near future.

Respecting anonymity is the simplest and most practical means for a moderately decent government to respect the rights of its citizens.

Anyone STILL trust Government and Security Service

[Anonymous Coward]

More fool you!

Haven't you learnt yet that they cannot be trusted?

What are your thoughts here, bush fanboys?

[sizzzzlerz]

Will they still be the same under President Clinton?

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Tom]

Citizens don't get to vote on impeachment. Our congresscritters do. They scare us, too. You elected them. You can not elect them again, or you can shoot them, whatever works. Above all, career politicians are interested in job security (their own, not their voters'). So if a large part of the population openly turns against them, they will follow, because they fear for their re-election.

But - and that's the problem - most americans are too dumb and/or lazy to care.

Not that Europe would be that much better. A little, because in most places we have more than two parties that count for something, and thus more choice and all, but the same party we all hate for their lies and corruption will still get 20%, 30% of the votes again. Maybe they lost 10%, but so what, the top honchos are safe no matter.

Screw off US government!

[harshmanrob]

I am saying this to Donald Kerr and other neocon scum. I value my privacy and internet anonymity. I do not appreciate the US government or anyone else meddling in my business. I do not approve of the war on terror, 911 was obviously carried out by the government and a plane DID NOT hit the pentagon. Stay out of my (and everyone else's) god damn business.

I will say this. My internet anonymity will end the day a get a national security letter (NSL) for any reason. As I have said in several posts. Once I get one, I will post it here on slashdot in its complete unedited entirety. With full names, addresses, and anything else that might be on it.

I will also take out full page ads in the newspapers as well printing the NSL as well.

I do not scare easy...I might be too dumb, but I not scared of Christian Evangelical Neocon Republican trash.

So you think we live under Fascism?

[FatSean]

I'm starting to think so too....bleh.

The Fourth Amendment

[Phantom of the Opera]

"The "right of privacy" is a judicial construct. I'm not saying that it is a bad construct, but you'll never see the word "privacy" in the Constitution."

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I know that the fourth amendment was mentioned specifically in the gp post, but here it is for full effect. If you don't believe that the text is not about privacy, then you have a different understanding of language that I do.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not quite the same...

[Vr6dub]

I understand what you are trying to say. The difference is, as an American citizen, I am protected under American law. The problem is that the American government is violating its own constitution. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not protect non-American citizens. It may not be right but I am unaware of a country who puts safegaurds to privacy in place for non citizens. In a perfect world no government would spy on any other government or persons for that matter. As an American I can only stand up for the safegaurds our constitution has put in place for us as American citizens.

Re:Not quite the same...

[Tony]

The major difference is, if another government spies on me, they'll have to go through my government to extradite me. That means actually going through some sort of court.

However, if my government is spying on me, they can do whatever the hell they want. They can determine I have badmouthed G. W. Bush (by calling him many bad, bad names and exposing his propensity for sheep-dick sucking, which is why he spent so much of his time at his ranch his first 10 months in office). They can determine I am a "dissident." They can ruin my life, or they can send me away to Guantanamo. These are all things they can do without any court, without any writ of any kind whatsoever.

That's the difference.

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Anonymous Coward]

Do realize that the sad state of affairs in the Congress prevents us from such activities.

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[Tom]

Do realize that the sad state of affairs in the Congress prevents us from such activities. You are excused, after all we know that Congress grows on trees and isn't being put there by, say, elections.

Crime

[Tony]

That attitude is certainly something you may chose for your life but such cavalier disregard for life is not held by responsible people.

Yes. Yes it is.

I am a responsible person. I believe the federal government long ago exceeded its Constitutional authority. I believe this intrusion of privacy goes against everything embodied in the US Constitution.

"Responsibility" != scared shitless.

There are few terrorists among us. Very few. To the point of essential non-existence. Once a decade we have a terrorist attack. Sometimes nobody is killed. Other times, several hundred get killed, including children. Other times, a few thousand get killed.

Once. A. Decade.

Meanwhile, thousands of children die each year from neglect or abuse. Tens of thousands of citizens die from preventable causes simply because they can't afford health care. Yet I don't see us going all nutso because of it. Why's that?

This whole "terrorism" thing is a strawman, used by the government to extend their authority. No more, no less. As a responsible American citizen, it is my duty to uphold the US Constitution. I took an oath when I joined the Army to do so. Though I am no longer in the military, I take that oath seriously.

Don't tell me a responsible person doesn't prefer privacy and liberty above life. "Give me liberty, or give me death," used to mean something in this country.

Or do you consider the American Revolutionary War irresponsible?

Re:Crime

[FredThompson]

We will have to agree to disagree about what are acceptable societal losses due to crime, warfare and terrorism. Apparently, we will also have to agree to disagree on the definition of terrorism. Is extortion terrorism? Is providing material support to terrorists terrorism?

What about the young Muslim men arrested in the U.S. last year for buying hundreds of dispoable cell phones which were sold to people who processed them into triggering devices for IEDs? What about counterfeit products, especially medical and food items?

Terrorism is asymetric warfare. It's not just the point of impact of an explosive attack.

You seem to want freedom from responsibility. Anarchistic agrarian existence will give you that. Very few people inside the U.S. are forced to stay here other than those who are incarcerated. There are people who have critical knowledge who have travel restrictions but, realistically, they could sneak out if they want. You're more than welcome to leave the U.S. if you chose. If you chose to be in a modern society, you will have to accept that society's means of enforcing accountability and pre-emptively protecting itself.

WRT the US Constitution, I agree that in some ways the Federal Government is operating way outside the letter and intent of the structure. Congress' use of interstate commerce and collusion with the court system to demand control of activities far outside their mandate is deplorable. At the same time, the Constitution does include the strucutre of creating laws as a means to adapt to changing times. It would be quite far-fetched to think the Founding Fathers could have visualized our technological age in the 1770s.

Re:We do need to redefine privacy - with cryptogra

[Qzukk]

Hm, excuse me, but that sounds like total horse****. In HTTPS, you have a public key for the server, and use it to perform an exchange of a symmetric key.

The problem is that you don't have "a public key for the server", you have the public key the server just gave you. If I set up a man-in-the-middle machine that answers your query with a fake public key, then forwards your request on to the real server, then your only defense is that the public key I created on the fly was not signed by one of the "trusted" certificate issuers... or was it?

The system is only as trustworthy as your list of trusted cert issuers. Do you trust every company on that list not to produce SSL-inspection hardware that creates trusted signed certs on the fly? Did you check to see if the list changed after you ran the installation disc your ISP gave you to see if it had installed the public key for their SSL-inspection hardware into the trust list?

Of course Bush didn't do it

[Tony]

It was the *real* President. Dick Cheney.

The reports were covered up, not ignored.

Long before he became VP, Cheney helped author a report that stated the only way to enact certain legislation preferred by the neo-con right would involve a "Pearl Harbor-like event." The PATRIOT act was one such piece of legislation.

Within *ten months* of Bush's term, we get a Pearl Harbor-like event. Coincidence? Oh, I think not.

(Actually, I don't think it was engineered by the government, either. But consider: bin Laden was trained by the CIA. He worked in Afghanistan on behalf of the United States under Reagan and Bush Sr. He is also still at large, and the US isn't even looking for him. Coincidence? I don't think so.)

There's too much empirical evidence to indicate high-level complicity in the attacks. The current administration had much to gain from the attacks, by their own statements.

Bush's reaction was genuine. He was scared shitless. You should look to Dick Cheney's reaction-- pushing Bush into a war with Iraq within hours of the attack, for instance.

As a disclaimer: I don't really believe there was a conspiracy before 9/11. There was one *after*, and that's the one we should be looking at, but I believe there wasn't one beforehand. I just like a good conspiracy theory to remind folks that sometimes, things are not like they seem. It's good for skepticism.

Re:We do need to redefine privacy - with cryptogra

[vkg]

So what you're saying is that if you provide a fake certificate, HTTPS is insecure.

Well.... yes, of course. But that's nothing to do with fancy routers or having both ends of the conversation going over your pipes, that's just a basic property of public key cryptography.

Not just ideals

[Tony]

I read the GP post to say that the Constitution isn't just an ideal to strive for; rather, it's a practical recipe for those ideals. To deviate significantly from the Constitution (which is a practical embodiment of the ideals) threatens the idealism of the Constitution, as well.

At least, that's how I interpreted it.

Re:Not just ideals

[postbigbang]

There's truth to that, but it's the law of the land in the USA, a metric by which all other laws, in toto, are held.

There is no specific constitutional right to privacy per se. It's implied in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th, and other theories of law that have been held to by judges from the top down. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe Americans should be naturally suspicious of the intentions of government intrusions into personal lives, conversations, and the rest of what we do on a legitimate day to day basis. Idealisms be damned, intrusions into privacy are unwarranted. It's the first step towards tyranny.

We can trust governments

[mapsjanhere]

... because we have judicial oversight. Like in Germany, where the courts ordered the police to delete illegally collected data. Years later it was revealed that "deleting data" in police practice meant to add a "deleted" entry to the data file.

Almost? He *was* impeached.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can learn more about impeachment at Wikipedia.

That's the problem.

[hotsauce]

They were convinced during the cold "war" that these huge surveillance organisations were necessary for other soils. Now they have been convinced during this terror "war" that these organisations are necessary for their own soil. It's a slippery slope that was started down decades ago.

Once you can break the rights of one "bad guy", it's easy to paint anyone you want "bad".

The ACLU may not always be popular, but they have the big picture right. Too bad they have the word "American" in front of their name, instead of "World".

Take your own medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

The request may be reasonable, but the motivations and justifications ought to be examined carefully. First, is the government willing to accept their own medicine? If it is important that the citizens be visible to the government will this include the government's private citizens? Why should the people not know every detail of their government's people, elected or not? Is the government willing to institute mandatory DNA testing with published results for sensitive or all government offices? Public account of all finances, movement, conversation, etc, not only on official business but permanently while holding office with appropriate penalties (see below) for non-compliance? David(?) Brin offered this solution, and it is not the worst outcome (that, of course, is no privacy/anonymity for the plebs with no effect on the patricians).

Second, is the government willing to increase the penalties commensurate with the powers? Will we have life sentences for unauthorized access of somebody's driving record? Temporary or permanent bans from holding government offices? Serious, non-bankruptable fines? Mandatory payouts to victims?

If there is a good argument for denying the people anonymity or privacy, there's a good argument for making the people making up the government pay a price as well. It just needs a good incentive structure. If the government is not willing to accept this side of the bargain, then 'for the good of the people' is a lie and they just want to make their rulership a little easier on them.

January 20th, 2009: what changes?

[Sloppy]

The Bush administration is systematically perverting the American Constitution.

That's alarming, but not as alarming as the realization that he could not have done any of it, without the help of the 2000 Congress, the 2002 Congress, the 2004 Congress, the 2006 Congress, and the enthusiastic consent of almost every voting American.

If you think 1/20/9 is some kind of salvation date, you are seriously deluded. GWB's values live on. If you vote for someone who agrees Bush should have had all that power, that Bush merely used it for the wrong aims, then you're part of the problem. You're going to vote for Bush even if that's not his name.

You say GWB is perverting the constitution. I say he's just going along with the flow. Stop hating the man, and start hating what he stands for. There are currently no anti-Bush candidates that the polls show as reasonably likely to win the next presidential election. Focusing on that date, 1/20/9, makes you sound like a supporter of the status quo. Are you looking forward to another 4 years that continue the trends of the preceding 16?

Re:Finding out about yourself?

[Xman73x]

Look here I don't trust our government etc..And as far as Privacy is our government should stick to what they do best get rid of the Terrorist's and anything that has to do with Evil good bye!..But for our safety keep our records secure etc..But I don't like it that a hacker can steal your identity..Birth records etc..Damn the Internet..

The only way to Freedom in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote RON PAUL 2008

The solution..

[Kazoo the Clown]

The solution is to have TOO MUCH information about you, mostly incorrect. Your favorite books are The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren and the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. You like to watch the PTL Club and the spice channel. You're a registered Republican but you always vote for Democrats. You're a member of the Sierra Club and the NRA. You're 25 years old and belong to AARP.

They may know where you live and where you work, but good luck figuring out what you think.

The next question is of course, what tools would make this easier? Posting autobots that post as you to hundreds of forums, newsgroups and chat rooms with opinions that are all over the map? Arrange to buy stuff for your luddite friends on the internet in order to build up a huge database of products you buy, little of which you actually use or have any interest in? Arrange to live in each others houses?

If they want information, GIVE IT TO THEM. Bury them in it. The only real means they have of verifying or correcting any of it is to do the legwork they should be doing in the first place instead of relying on a technological solution. We're talking about large bureaucracies, and they're becoming cyber-slackers. Give the beast some gibberish to chew on for awhile, and provide the haystack to hide the needle in...

Re:The solution..

[Kazoo the Clown]

Oh, and here's another one. Change your name to JOHN SMITH and name your kids things like Mary, Jane, William, etc.. Make sure you have the most COMMON name in HISTORY...

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[jafac]

Well, we DID not re-elect them. In 2006. And the incumbent party leadership STILL rolled over; so - even though there was a clear mandate for change from the voters, the candidates that were turned-over did not represent the constituency within congress that was actually capable of making that change.

When they say "we didn't have enough votes" - they aren't talking about not enough votes to override the vetos. They're talking about not enough votes to override Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the incumbent leadership of the Democratic Party that NEEDS to be flushed out of the system before any real change can happen.

Fuckers are going to PAY - but it's going to take maybe 6 more years to clean out the sewers first, before we can flush the toilet and expect a clean bowl.

Re:We do need to redefine privacy - with cryptogra

[Qzukk]

So what you're saying is that if you provide a fake certificate, HTTPS is insecure.

What I'm saying is that what the other poster said isn't "horse****". If you jack into my ethernet hub, and it turns out that my ethernet hub is connected to a firewall like this, I can read your HTTPS traffic, if not most of your encrypted traffic. SSH is only protected because it keeps a list of known fingerprints and alerts you if something changed. If you get a completely different certificate for https://www.paypal.com/ tomorrow, as long as the browser can confirm that it was signed by someone it was configured to trust (for instance Microsoft, or AT&T), it won't even bat an eye.

Maybe the other guy was confused, or just confusing, but everything that he said is fully possible.

Re:We do need to redefine privacy - with cryptogra

[vkg]

What you're talking about is a compromise of the certificate chain. I understand that it's possible, but that's an explicit vulnerability of HTTPS and why we tried hard to keep people from getting dud certs. If you do have a dodgy cert, there's all kinds of approaches to messing business up - DNS hacking, most prominently.

Don Kerr is CIA

[inKubus]

Don Kerr is CIA, but traditionally the NRO and space operations have been Air Force positions. The rationale is to not have too much power over too many intelligence assets. One of the last things Donald Rumsfeld did before his departure was make Kerr director of NRO..

Be Very Afraid

[Anonymous Coward]

If we stay on this course you will all be RFID microchipped and when you don't do what you're told your chip will be turned off and you won't have access to the world around you which will all be tied in to RFID.

Educate yourself:
Watch these videos on Google before they are removed:
"Money as Debt"
"The money masters"
"Zeitgeist"

Alison and Margo Kerr?

[inKubus]

Wife Alison, and has a daughter, Margo, who is veternarian in Denver. According to this.

She works at

High Plains Veterinary Relief Services
Margot Kerr Vahrenwald, DVM
8*37 E 25th Place
Denver, CO 80238
720-2*4-2747

Here's a picture, and a story which names her daughters Savannah and Caitlin, her two cats Bart and Mish-Mish, and her dog, Tobermory.

According to a story in the Washington Post on home sales:

LEXINGTON ST. N., 2523-Christopher S. Vahrenwald and Margot K. Kerr to Mary Ellen Dudar, $575,621.

So, we do a quick search for him and what do you know, their Property tax record. Looks like she owns her office.

Chris, the husband, appears to be an insurance agent, accident, health and life, according to the Colorado Division of Insurance.

I could go on. Of course, this only uses free information, from Google. And I'm only posting this because of your comment and the fact that he said specifically what he said. All in all, his daughter looks like a pretty nice person so&!*&^^#$*&@#*(HD*&! NO CARRIER

Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas

[danaris]

You elected them. You can not elect them again, or you can shoot them, whatever works. Above all, career politicians are interested in job security (their own, not their voters'). So if a large part of the population openly turns against them, they will follow, because they fear for their re-election.

Unfortunately, Tom, it's not that simple. (Disclaimer: I don't know any of the legal details of this and am working purely from a general picture off the top of my head:)

You see, our congresscritters also have the power to decide just who it is who elects them—that is, they are the ones who get to redraw the voting districts. Thus, over the decades, they have carefully gerrymandered themselves into districts where the vast majority of them can be at least 85-90% sure that they will defeat any opposition, and at least 50% sure that they will do so by a wide margin. So even if 90% of the country hates a particular Representative, you can be sure that the 10% that love him are all in his own district—and that even those who aren't too happy about what he's doing still like him better than the other guy.

Personally, I think this system is insane, as demonstrated by the scandal in Texas a few years ago, where the Democrats in the state government all left the state for a while to make sure that the Republicans there couldn't get a quorum together to gerrymander the districts so that certain key Democrats would not get re-elected.

(It kinda makes me think of certain areas of BattleMaster, except that there they self-select, people who dislike certain leaders who never, ever lose elections leaving the realm, so that said leaders are always assured of the support of most of their realms...and thus remain in power for what is, in game terms, lifetimes...)

Dan Aris

What does "properly safeguard" actually mean?

[natoochtoniket]

"Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information."

That statement, by itself, does not actually mean anything. It depends on what it means to "properly safeguard" information.

One definition of what it means to "properly safeguard" private information is given in the Constitution: The information shall not be accessed without a warrant, and no warrant shall issue except with probable cause.

Any other definition what is proper to do with private information would seem to require a constitutional amendment.

I know the Constitution is terribly inconvenient for some government officials. Their jobs would be so much easier if they didn't have to abide by all those picky little constitutional details. If they want information, just take it. If they decide that you are a "terrorist" (whatever that means), just throw you in Guantanamo. No trials, no lawyers, no courts, no due process, no checks or balances. Very easy and convenient for the officials. Very dangerous for everyone else.

That kind of power is exactly what Hitler, Stalin, and many other dictators have had, throughout history.

And, that is precisely why we have our Constitution.