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.
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.
but it's an invasion of the candidate's privacy.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
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.
I'm not an American, but because the US is so influential in the world these elections are also important and interesting to me. This will have an indirect result on my life as well.
On the subject of online privacy, anything the US government decides on this matter will certainly affect me. Many sites (like Slashdot) that I visit are created and hosted in the US.
If the US decides to invade my privacy when visiting these sites, I will stay away from them. I have already decided to no longer visit the US, as long as it means having my fingerprints taken and such. I am not a criminal and I don't wish to be treated as one! I hope the US citizens (or at least enough of them) realize they are alienating themselves from the rest of the world. And that isn't in the best interest for any of us!
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
...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."
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.
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").
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
(I Am A Student of Political Science)
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the two on either side of the aisle that seem most likely to preserve Internet Privacy. That said, they are probably also the two running that have the least likelihood of even placing in a primary. Besides not looking presidential, they both have very unique (among their fellow candidates at least) agendas. Paul would like to shut down just about every government agency and put an end to all positive liberties. Kucinich is for more (suprisingly enough) contemporarily liberal reforms, taking us in not quite the opposite direction, but pushing for more positive liberties. Both are interested in individual rights and are (for now) in it for something other than promoting the interests of contributors.
Both of the slashdot users that won't be voting Ron Paul can enjoy their own thread.
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.
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
Actually, having just read both your references and a bit more, I think his rationale is quite valid. Maybe not perfect, but certainly justifiable.
First, the economic intervention proposed *would* set a dangerous precedent of using pension money for political ends. Regardless of the current ends, the precedent and power *will be* misused. The action should not be taken without careful consideration, which was the main thing Dr. Paul argued in both places: don't be hasty.
In the case of the declaration of genocide and intervention, his argument was primarily that the bill was being rushed through with minimal thought, debate, and time for revision. This is not really arguable if you look at the timetable. He is not saying (there) that he will utterly oppose it, but that he is predisposed to oppose it and that it requires *very* careful consideration. Given the debacle we already have ourselves in, I cannot argue that point either and I doubt you can.
He points out the condition of the military and its existing commitments. Can we meet those commitments by themselves? How can we do more on top of it? Again, hard to argue. Are we going to invade Pakistan, Venezuela, Burma, etc., etc.?
As for the "confusion" over the issues in Darfur, I see no such confusion in his statements. Those issues would become very confused by any intervention on our part, economic or military. The fact that the situation is complex makes it very hard to intervene surgically and not inflame issues. International peace keepers in Africa are seeing that now as they take fire from multiple sides because they are seen as interfering, because they are simply in the wrong place, or even because they are being raided by rebels for equipment and arms. Relief supplies rarely get to the right people, and sanctions often backfire because combatants will simply keep or take what they need from those we try to protect. We are very quick to consider action these days but very reluctant to actually think it through and really decide what is best and, of the things that need correcting in the world (and they are many) which ones we should really commit to. That, most often, is Dr. Paul's argument, and, again, it is hard to refute out of hand. The fact that he is primarily non-interventionist is a good foil to the trigger-happy attitude which prevails. That is why we have balance of powers (nominally).
Birth is the beginning of personhood. This seems very simple to me. Yes, I viewed all the ultrasounds of my unborn daughter and felt her kick. But if I had been told that by carrying her to term my wife would die, I would not have hesitated to have put the decision completely into my wife's hands. My daughter is now 19 years old and may someday be faced with the same decision. She is now sitting 20 feet away from me studying for a biology exam in the pre-med program in which she is enrolled. There is no question that she is now a person. If I pull out the ultrasound we have of her and compare it to a recent photo, I have no trouble determining that one is a picture of a person and one is the picture of an fetus, not yet a person.
I want her to be able to make decisions about her reproductive activity based on her own morality and reason, not the dictates of a legislature or religious dogma. You see, I trust women. My mother, my wife, my daughter, my neighbor are all capable of deciding what is best for their own bodies and whether or not to bear a fetus to term.
Motherhood is also very important. The act of having a child is the miraculous beginning to a person's life. That's why we count a person's age from the moment they are born, not when they were conceived. And, as I said, the fetus entirely belongs to the mother and to no one else. Ultimately, the question of "when does a person's life begin?" is answered, for me, by "whenever the mother says it does".
I am a little uncomfortable by the way the anti-choice activists seem to devalue both motherhood and the miracle of birth, and made even more uncomfortable when they start throwing words like "murder" around.
You are welcome on my lawn.