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.
He is the only one who believes in this &#&@* piece of paper called the Constitution. It takes a great man to realize and accept that there are limits on his power and let others govern themselves.
I'd like to know everyone's opinion about which presidential candidate
Before it even starts, can we just mod the entire discussion 'troll' and 'flamebait'? Instead of trawling for opinions, please browse either the Senate voting records or gubernatorial voting records of the candidates.
I don't think he's got a shot at really getting elected, but of all the candidates he seems to be the most likely to stand up for Constitutional rights. Second to him is, for Internet privacy at least, is possibly Obama. I don't think Obama can stay away from the pull of Hollywood and various *AA's to maintain full Internet privacy though.
The rest either don't care so much about the Constitution or are so far in the pockets of special interests that the only thing I can be sure of is that it's going to continue being a bumpy ride for the next four years.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
It's the executive branch's job to uphold the law... but as it is right now, there's no shortage of laws that pay lip service to the need of ISPs and such to keep private e-mail private, while another batch of laws circumvent this in a wide array of circumstances both dealing with national security and private matter. Say, a publicly traded company can't exactly keep e-mail secure if there potential for insider trading.
Not that the public really has a clue, though... Sadly, we've learned that our local public schools will gladly hand over authority to the federal government in exchange for a few measly dollars, so any presidential candidate could make a promise dealing with a matter that he/she officially has no role in, and you can be that laws will be passed and departments created that make it their role.
Simple as that. Privacy means less control, and by going into politics, they already proved that they want to be in control. Furthermore, more privacy for you means less information for the industry, i.e. the ones that gave the politicians money.
Privacy isn't something any politician will give you. Privacy is something you have to take if you want it. Voting for privacy simply won't work.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Right to privacy is not a specific constitutional right. It is inferred from a couple different amendments,(3,4,10 I believe) so claiming that someone who is a strict constitutionalist would be big supporter of privacy would not work. That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist, but it does mean that it is open to more interpretation than other "rights". I always hate a "right to privacy" debate, because it doesn't have any sort of set definition.
Now this is a post that needs to be modded up! Everything timster wrote is completely true. Ron Paul makes the ridiculously huge assumption that everyone that takes part in our society is totally informed on everything and that they will use that knowledge in making their choices. Reality has shown us time and time again that that is not the case.
This guy's the limit!
Well, I'll get modded down for this for sure -- but I feel the need to point out that:
* There are many individuals who would consider a total ban on abortions to be a major invasion of privacy, and
* Ron Paul is, from the statements on his website, 100% against any sort of legal abortion.
Other than that (and some deep skepticism about his idea to eliminate the Fed), he really does sound like a straight shooter. I respect the man, but can't vote for him.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
But if the election was between him and Kucinich, at least we would have a horse race. With our present slate of front runners, you can forget about any kind of privacy, online or off. We have a long way to go before civil rights becomes a real issue again.
What?
I haven't seen the Republican Congress/White House do anything to stop those ridiculous eminent domain seizures of private property just so that a Walmart can be built in its place.
that doesnt want to tell me or you how to live our lives. That sounds refreshing. Also maybe if you were a better friend "you" would do something about your "friends" wasting away on hard drugs and not rely on someone else to do it with my tax dollars.
To further illustrate the point, allow me to use a different example. For a long time I have not had a retirement fund (I'm young, give me a break) but I have been aware of that and thinking that I should. So I finally came to a non-hasty decision that I should do something about it. While that decision was not hasty and has been a long time coming, if I went out right now to the first bank I saw on the road and opened the first savings account in the brochure that would still be a hasty decision. Two very different decisions.
Again, you are talking about a decision to do something, the GP is suggesting that Ron Paul thought the actual "what exactly to do" decision was too hasty, not that the "should we do something" decision was too hasty.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
I see nothing wrong with non-interventinist foreign-policy. How are we going to help those people in Darfur? With taxpayer money. And the moral dilemma here is this: do taxpayers agree to have their money spent in this manner? Obviously the answer would be "No".
Ron Paul offers a very beautiful solution (nothing appalling). He says: if people in the US would like to get together and volunteer and pay help the Darfur cause - so be it. But don't get people's resources against their will to use for policy you think is morally right but not necessarily everybody else.
Dr. Paul voted against the gold medal for Rosa Parks as well. Do you know what he offered? He offered for all in Congress to chip in $100 and buy a medal. Needless to say, his wish did not come true. This example tells you a lot about "generosity" and "volunteerism" when it comes to spending someone else's money.