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.

Comments

Ron Paul

[mulhollandj]

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.

Re:Ron Paul

[Seumas]

I agree. Ron Paul is the only candidate who would possibly give any real thought to protecting the internet along with any other form of free speech. Everyone else is for free speech, freedom of assembly, privacy, etc -- as long as it's in support of things they want to say or to. But they're against the privacy, speech and assembly of anyone that disagrees with them. Or more importantly, that they disagree with.

Of course, as a politician, Ron Paul (if he even actually had a chance), would become just another bullshit politician, so it's all a moot point. You don't become a viable candidate unless you have the support of the establishment (aristocrats, other politicians, corporations, religious organizations and unions). So no matter who you are or what side you supposedly are on or what you purport to be your values, the only viable and successful candidates are the ones who will do the bidding of the aforementioned groups. One may perform the duties of one organization or another slightly more than another candidate, but the degree of variation is minor (which of course is why there is nearly no difference between the two parties -- or even most official independent candidates).

But of course, people have this misguided believe that all they have to do to change the world is place a vote. Why, if you place a vote, it will ALL change. Bullshit candidates will somehow become viable, despite shirking the establishment and they'll stay true to their word and everyone else will side with them, even though they don't push the agreed upon religious or union agendas. Of course, that's why things will never change. You and I are taught from birth that the bullshit which has been constant for generations is somehow only a vote away from changing. That we have the true power. That, why, one vote can suddenly stop the massive waves of people on the left and right who want to control every aspect of our lives and our thoughts.

And as long as we buy into that -- and as long as we care more about the next episode of a show where someone dances with famous people or a bunch of nattering hens on a daily morning show or the success of our commercial sports team that share our exact . . . um . . . zip code -- we'll continue to get what we've always gotten. And continue to believe that we're somehow making things change, when they're staying the same.

Re:Ron Paul

[Seumas]

Like most politicians, Obama will support the internet policies that his lobbiests tell him to support.

Re:Ron Paul

[timster]

What are you talking about? The Constitution says nothing about Internet privacy, so Ron Paul would leave that issue to local control or the free market. Consider his position on the FDA -- he says that it's not necessary for any government body to ensure that drugs or supplements are safe because people will stop buying from companies that sell dangerous ones. Such a president wouldn't care if Google is snooping your search results -- they'd tell you to deal with it or use some other search engine.

Don't get me wrong -- Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, and there are great advantages to a constitutional form of government. I just think that he's becoming the new Ralph Nader, with this underground movement which considers him the solution to all of our problems. He's certainly not the solution to Internet privacy concerns.

Re:Ron Paul

[MSTCrow5429]

Wait a sec, I'm a Jew, I back Ron Paul, I know other Jews that also back Ron Paul (no, not my family), so how are we like David Duke? There are David Duke types hanging around like fleas at the periphery of every campaign, but they are a minority on the fringe.

Re:Ron Paul

[OgreChow]

Of course, as a politician, Ron Paul (if he even actually had a chance), would become just another bullshit politician, so it's all a moot point.


As far as I can see, he has yet to become a bullshit politician after years of serving in the senate.

Re:Ron Paul

[rk]

Ignoring the strawman* you've erected for the moment, let's talk about the war on drugs and tell me how you expect to stop the flow of drugs. My brother-in-law got busted for smoking pot in September. Trouble was, at the time he was already in a maximum security prison, and has been for nearly seventeen years now. So please tell me: If we can't keep illicit drugs away from felons in a maximum security prison, how do you propose we keep them away from 300 million people in the third largest country in the world, geographically speaking? If your answer is to turn the entire country into a giant ultra-supermax gulag, you've pretty much admitted defeat in my eyes, as I find that wholly unacceptable.

* - I have a friend who had a terrible heroin addiction for years. He's been clean for about six years now, but I'm still opposed to the war on drugs. Also, compare and contrast: isolationist vs. non-interventionist. Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Most libertarians are non-interventionists... though it is a fair cop to say some have isolationist tendencies.

Re:Ron Paul

[paitre]

House of Representatives, not Senate.

Point remains unchanged, though.

Re:Ron Paul

[greginnj]

He's -=personally=- pro-life, but is politically pro-choice.

Whaa? Check out this link:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/.

I find the statements here hard to square with 'politically pro-choice'. I would say he's personally pro-life, politically pro-state's-rights. He would end all federal funding for abortion (e.g. military hospitals, etc.), and would work to reverse Roe v. Wade by essentially making it a state-level issue. The closest he comes to being pro-choice, apparently, is that he is not advocating a nationwide abortion ban via federal law.

Again, his states-rights reading of the constitution leads him to a unique position. I'm borderline pro-choice, but I have to respect his position as consistent with his principles, and preferable to those which would ban abortion outright, nationwide.

Dennis Kucinich

[_bug_]

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.

Not their job.

[Rahga]

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.

I was absolutely pro-Ron Paul until...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

...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

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Remember

[usul294]

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.

Re:Remember

[Dr. Donuts]

You've got it exactly backwards, and unfortunately many folks have a hard time understanding Constitutional logic.

First, you have *ALL* rights. ALL means ALL. Whether they are enumerated/defined or not, you have them. The Constitution was written specifically in this manner, so not to suggest that the People got their rights from the Government or laws, but rather the other way around.

The impact of such logical construction of the Constitution means that rights that were undefinable or even unfathomable back then were *automatically* protected from infringement by the Government.

Amendment 10 further extended this logic, by actually explicitly stating all rights are reserved by the People and the States, rather than just implying it.

MOD PARENT UP

[gEvil (beta)]

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.

Dennis Kucinich

[Eravnrekaree]

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.

you are uninformed or malicious

[dh003i]

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.