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.
...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."
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.
House of Representatives, not Senate.
Point remains unchanged, though.
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.
If you want to find out how the people who represent YOU have voted, type in your ZIP code here.
Learn about Divestment
Divestment status
Divestment legislation status
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