Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidates and Online Privacy
noiseordinance writes "I'd like to know everyone's opinion about which presidential candidate seems most likely to preserve Internet privacy." We haven't officially started election coverage on Slashdot yet, but I figured it wouldn't be a bad idea to start tossing out questions like this as we get closer to the primaries. Try to stay on the subject of on-line privacy- we can run more stories on other topics in the future.
Haven't seen or heard anything specific to online privacy. I'd be willing to be it's low on the list of issues for most.
I'd guess Dennis Kucinich given his website statements regarding the Patriot Act and other government policies that deal with (directly or indirectly) an individual's privacy. I would expect that view extends to the online world.
Ditto on Paul, Obama...though I maintain the naive hope that Obama is more independent of those interests than we might assume. What I like about Obama in addition is his stance about the government's privacy rights; namely, he doesn't think there are any. His stance on government online operability and transparency is refreshing and, so far, unreplicated by the others, even Paul. IIRC, he did some good stuff on both in the Illinois legislature dduring his stint there; caught my eye.
So sensible you would have thought someone would have shot those two by now. (Kidding, Secret Service! Kidding...). :) This sort of reasonable and principled policy approach cannot be allowed to mainstream in American politics!
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
...until I found out about his opinion regarding the Darfur genocide (watch this excellent Frontline special online if you have no clue what is happening over there).
While I can understand his not wanting to send troops over there to stop the government from slaughtering its own people, I can not understand his voting against the Divestment Act of 2007 (passed 418-1), which intended "to require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, [and] to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies".
Basically, the act says that if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that country.
When I read Paul's argument, I was even more appalled. Not only did he ignore the currently-known results of divesting from Sudan (in other words, it's working!), he also had the gall to (purposely?) confuse the Darfur genocide with the completely separate North-South civil war. So his basic argument was "we shouldn't be getting involved with other countries' civil wars"
Ron Paul's stance on Privacy and Personal Liberty.
"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters."
Here is Paul's speech in which he confuses the Darfur genocide with the North-South civil war - two completely separate issues (the Sudanese government even said that they were delaying a peace agreement to end the civil war, in order to have a "lasting solution in Darfur").
Except for the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like, and wants to amend, as he admits on his own website.
I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.He's also rabidly pro-life. While I won't argue the merits of Roe vs. Wade, the majority of American courts have considered a woman's right to choose a fundamental Constitutional right for 30 years. Perhaps he's only pro-Constitution on issues you care about?
Dennis Kucinich has repeatedly voted against bills that would deprive americans of their freedom and privacy. He voted against the Patriot Act which erodes away key civil liberties, and the "Thought Crime Bill" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/261007_ensnare_activists.htm , which could be, which is so broadly worded and loosely defined it could be used against peaceful activists. Even Ron Paul did not vote against the Thought Crime Bill. Kucinich was one of only 6 representatives to vote against it. If you want freedom, and you want your liberties preserved, the best choice is Kucinich.
Please do not confuse divestment with intervention - there is too much at stake for people to (purposely or ignorantly) confuse the two. There's a big difference between the US government saying to companies, "if you are providing the Sudan government with the equipment to help them mow down their own people, then you will not be entitled to any US government contracts" (ie, divestment) and the US government sending troops over there to protect the victims (intervention).
I can understand Paul being against intervention, but not against divestment.
"Why aren't those being killed fighting back?"
Unlike the Sudanese government, the victims are just villagers, not being supported heavily by China or other companies. Sudan sends out helicopters that mow them down in the middle of the night, one village at a time.
"Is there anywhere they could go?"
They have tried running across the west border to Chad, but the murderers, who are simply bandits paid by the Sudan government, followed them across the border, and are now attacking the humanitarian camps.
"Can we simply kill all the aggressors, and are there none that would simply replace them?"
The aggressors on the ground are bandits (they do the raping and torture) - it'd be hard to fight them off, but they and the helicopters and planes that do the mass killing are funded by the Sudanese government and China, and companies which US citizens invest in. Telling those companies we will not support what they support has been effective in Sudan. For Paul to act otherwise (ignorantly or not) is ridiculous.
House of Representatives, not Senate.
Point remains unchanged, though.
As far as I can see, he has yet to become a bullshit politician after years of serving in the senate. Other than the fact he is a member of the House, I agree, he has a proven track record. He is quick to state his point of view and just as quick to vote against his own view if it is outside the scope of the Constitution.
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
Actually, there are laws NOW that limit government collection and trolling through personal information it has collected about its citizens to look for potential criminals. It can't use tax, census or social security data to feed its intelligence and law enforcement databases; it can only use data it collects for intel or law enforcement purposes.
The loophole is that the government can simply fill its intelligence and law enforcement database with equivalent data purchased on the open market.
This is a perfect illustration of the problem of looking at government as the sole source of privacy concerns. Once everybody can find out things about your private life, you can't stop the government from knowing too.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You make it sound like RP supported the bill with a YES vote. He did not vote on the bill, because he was not there when it was being voted on. He was campaigning. Since a few others already made the symbolic NO vote against tyranny, providing arguments, there was really little more for RP to add; aside, of course, from his own unique eloquent opposition to tyranny.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I guess the anonymous moron has missed this: http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/ and this: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert20071120.htm
/sarcasm
I guess I'll have to tell my Korean sister in law an my half Venezuelan nephew I'm like David Duke.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!