Slashdot Mirror
Court Orders White House to Disclose Telecom Ties
rgiskard01 writes "Glenn Greenwald is reporting at Salon.com on a win for the EFF, in the battle for clarity regarding the telecom surveillance scandal. A federal judge ordered the Bush administration yesterday to accede to the EFF's Freedom of Information Act request. Assuming the White House follows the court order, they would have to make public their lobbying ties to the telecoms industry. 'These disclosures will reveal ... which members of Congress McConnell and other Bush officials privately lobbied. As an argument of last resort, the administration even proposed disclosing these documents on December 31 so that -- as EFF pointed out -- the information would be available only after Congress passed the new FISA bill. The court rejected every administration claim as to why it should not have to disclose these records.'" Greenwald goes on to argue that the order should be leveled against Senators as well, to get a sense of who else is in Ma Bell's pocket.
They think they are above the law already.
The article is a bit dense, but those documents don't relate to the spying, only the the telecom immunity bill which was proposed.
Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
Has anyone else noticed how much that tag is used?
If it is used every day on a different issue, it seems that common sense isn't as rare of an asset as was once believed.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Once all the greed comes out, how will the EFF get that information into Joe-citizen's hands in time for elections and voting (and not just the tech-community and other usual suspects).
The FCC and SEC are all filled with Bush Appointees.
He did this with knowledge and aforethought. Bush is
really a traitor to the American people.
...kinda like switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches scurry for cover to hide.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
Then I'm sure the White House will get right on that.
It's worth referencing this recent /. article on a similar topic. Wonder how many parallels or ideas we can draw from both...
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Greenwald goes on to argue that the order should be leveled against Senators as well, to get a sense of who else is in Ma Bell's pocket.
And I'd like a pony that floated on rainbows and candy and secreted money instead of sweat! Geez! Can't you learn to be content!
Joking aside, that would be the next logical step. Of course having all lobbying be completely transparent has always been the logical next step to cleaning house, but now Washington doesn't run on logic does it?
I got a catholic block.
Is there any reason that doesn't involve corruption we can't know what corporate/other representatives our elected officials are meeting with?
It seems like most of the time these meetings couldn't involve national security(I would go so far as to say most things don't, whatever they claim), so why are they secret to begin with?
and logic says that if you are a congress man living on lobby money then you don't want a clear paper trail, because it will make it harder to get more of that wonderful pony sweat. Logic says that the man who makes the laws should work to protect his own interests as often as he can without completely alienating the plebes who vote him in based on his name recognition.
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
I know washington hasn't heard those words in a while but it's glad to see they still exist somewhere every once in a while. This is why the founding fathers of the US made three branches instead of just 1 blunt club. I just wish we would see this sort of thing happen more often..
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
Won't the administration simply issue copies of all the requested documents with all the relevant information "redacted in the interest of national security"? (I'm a Canadian. I don't know how crap like this works.)
Sorry guys. Your system of Government has been up for sale for a long time now. The highest bidders are just sorting themselves out now. Democracy has ended in the US, is it now an oligarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy or a Plutocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy ?
Simplistic and incorrect. You forgot 0. There was something before all divisions and definitions, especially before the division between self and non self. And anything you can say about that is, all at the same time, incorrect, correct, neither correct nor incorrect, and both correct and incorrect. But this is all just philosophical masturbation. Not that I don't enjoy a good wank now and then, but here's a thought. Stop trying to define. The desire to define and categorize comes from fear of the unknown. Just stop. Be here now. ;-)
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But it's hilarious.
I hope this is sarcasm.
I really do.
Sam
I don't think so. Zero is just a number. One can represent something meaningful. You might as well posit starting with negative one sentients. They are called whole numbers for a reason.
I'm looking for real philosophical discussion, not wordplay. Reply to the original post if you have something meaningful to say.
There are not an infinite number of catchy little lists. Given the reasonable requirements of English and size of list, there are a finite number.
00:00 [b]Bush:[/b] Hey, Cheney, get in here! I need you to help me figure something out here.
00:10 [B]Cheney:[/b] What is it now?
18:40 [B]Bush:[/b] That's brilliant! Get right on top of it!
They will loudly denounce all the very things they considered so vital. The 180-degree turn will be fun to watch, but also sad, in that I know now that they're all lying would-be totalitarians who only distrust government because they don't happen to like who's in charge that week.
You sound almost as if you are defending the corruptness of the system; or at least saying 'Well, that's just the way it is'.
I don't agree with that - if the system doesn't work, it has to be changed. And it clearly doesn't work, because:
- as this government has demonstrated again and again, they can get away with just about any crime. This one is just one of the small ones - how about the war in Iraq and all the others? Ie: they are not accountable.
- the government's policy is determined, not by the people elected and according to what they stand for, but by big business: the energy industry, the big telecoms, the religious extremists, the military. The interests of the people do not enter the equation at any point. Ie: they do not govern for the people.
- the elections are simply an elaborate fraud. The people are not given sufficient relevant information about the political views of the candidates, for one thing - instead they are fed a mixture of soap opera and reality tv where such momentous subjects dominate as eg. the scandalous story that 'X once smoked dope'. And apart from that, the only real candidates are all in the pockets of those who own the real power: Big Money, so it doesn't matter who the hell you elect.
Is that democracy? Of course not; Americans have not known democracy for generations. In a real democracy the government
- is independent of special interest - they serve the whole of the people.
- accountable under the law
- elected from candidates that stand only on their own merits, not on the buying power of their secret backers
Did you know that in several if not most countries in Europe, each party is only allowed the same amount of tv time as the other parties during an election? That members of governmet are often held MORE responsible than ordinary people rather than less? Think of the British ministers who've had to go for having an affair, something that would hardly have raised an eyebrow, had they not been in government. The Europeans may all be 'bloody commies' for all I know, but they have a better democracy.
Her 1993 health-care proposal was somewhat more ambitious, although it was mainly criticized for being excessively bureaucratic rather than "socialist". Basically it would've kept everything nominally private, but created a detailed set of rules for what exactly corporations and private HMOs would have to offer to whom and in what manner.
Her current proposal seems to have backed off a lot and basically consists of a recipe for the government to shovel lots of money at insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Are you serious? How the hell did you get +3 Insightful for that mighty steaming pile of shit!?
I would like to know if the EFF is lobbying any political groups (especially since it would be a despicable waste of donation money, although I doubt they could afford it since they run on donations) but the EFF is basically just pro-privacy, pro-fair-use and anti-censorship:
http://www.eff.org/work
Do you think privacy, fair use and free speech are "leftist political goals?"
Anyone who is anti-privacy and/or pro-censorship is the EFF's rival, for no reason other than that.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Privacy, free speech, fair use = political causes. Gotcha.
the EFF is a business just like any of these other businesses that they would "save" us from.
Nonprofit organization = large corporation. I'm following.
OF course they lobby. Do you suppose that EFF has never written a letter to congress, written to a senator, or gasp, even called a congress men? That's lobbying dude...
Sure it is, but I'd say there's a difference between trying to convince people with words and trying to convince people with money.
But the reality is, that the EFF has other political agendas despite its high minded goals. Look at how much they are expending to oppose the immunity of telcos for, gasp, listening to the government. If the telcos stopped spying, that's should be enough for them. But they aren't. They are looking for damages. You know why? Because they want the money.
Other poitical agendas? Such as? And is there any hint, in the article or from the history of the EFF's cases, that they're looking for damages?
It's all about money, and you are just too ladeedahdahdah your stupid causes to see it.
Oh yeah my stupid causes, how silly they are. I should forget them and instead, blindly follow some political party on their every decision, deriding any group that opposes them. And the best way to do that is by explicitly stating what "the reality is."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I've been trying to hold off calling you a right-wing nutjob, but what am I supposed to say now? The answer to those three is "infinite." I was going to say "as much as is possible without hurting others" but I can't think of any way that privacy, free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:
"The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored." Nonprofit organization = large corporation. I'm following.
Yeah, that's right.
Oookay O_o
They are looking for money. What more do you need.
More than you saying it. See my original question on this point.
Tell me, what is it that the EFF does the precludes you from lobbying your congressman yourself?
Well first of all, I'm not an American, I'm just along for the ride as you guys drunk-drive the technology industry around with the Internet backbone in the trunk. And if I was, sure I could write a congressman, but at the same time what's wrong with forming a group or supporting a group that supports your cause? People in groups make a bigger impact. Does the EFF threaten you? Are your ideals, political or otherwise, incompatible with the EFF's goals?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
At least I can claim something. The sense of self is nothing other than a memory going back in time to infinity. The threads of self are separate--this is consistent with reality. We don't have any sort of telepathy to others. What can you claim when you lay awake at night? What can you claim when you know death is near? Your statements are just like zero--fascinating, but empty.
Logic doesn't say any of that. Talk about a need for transparency. Claiming "logic says" without listing the premises and assumptions for the argument is a fallacy in that it is an appeal to a blind authority.
After all, otherwise one could do this:
Logic says that the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
Neither that statement nor yours are logical by themselves. The arguments ned to be put forth. For example:
Assertion A)
Doing what the voters are eager for you to do will keep you in office
Assertion B)
By working to minimize your interests in office you can write books and do speaking gigs and guest appearances that show you to be the better office holder
Assertion C)
People will buy books written by you that demonstrate "the right way" to govern.
Assertions D)
You would like to make more money than just your congressional salary
Argument:
Given these assertions, the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
Logic says that if the assertions are true, and the argument based on those assertions contains no logical fallacies, then it is logical for the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
"Logic says..." is no different than "[Bush,Gore,Streisand,Chrichton,Clinton,Kerry,Paul] says...". Except that in the latter it can be verified by reference.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
I've been trying to hold off calling you a right-wing nutjob, but what am I supposed to say now? The answer to those three is "infinite." I was going to say "as much as is possible without hurting others" but I can't think of any way that privacy, free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:
Well, then, in that case, you aren't thinking. If there is infinite privacy, then, certainly the shareholders of the phone company that you are suing are having -their- privacy rights violated. Phone companies belong to people and those people have privacy rights too. Therefor, what the EFF is really doing, is violating someone's privacy. Like I said, its politics. You just don't want to see it.
free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:
If there is infinite free speech, then, I could say whatever I wanted. If I was a billionaire, then, I could, in fact, put into the media whatever I wanted to about whatever candidate that I wanted. Bottom line is, that, again, there is always a boundary line between the free speech of people, and where that line is drawn is political.
And infinite fair use is the same as saying there is no such thing as a copyright.
Well first of all, I'm not an American, I'm just along for the ride as you guys drunk-drive the technology industry around with the Internet backbone in the trunk. And if I was, sure I could write a congressman, but at the same time what's wrong with forming a group or supporting a group that supports your cause? People in groups make a bigger impact. Does the EFF threaten you? Are your ideals, political or otherwise, incompatible with the EFF's goals?
You could write a congressman, whether you are in the USA or not.
You're right, I am a right winger, but, since we right wingers were way ahead of the left in exploiting the internet, we're a bit farther along in seeing its consequences. The idea, that you don't get, is that the internet is balkanizing the world. Everyone is getting feedbacked looped into signing up for varying groups and clubs. These groups are becoming the prime source of information, self reinforcing - really, religious theocracies in their own right. When you support one of these groups, all you are really doing is enriching the would-be-dictators that run them. I'm sorry you can't see it, but when my group decides to take the next step, and form a militia, then, perhaps you will. I already know plenty of righties that are thinking about revolution.
This is my sig.
Should privacy in business matters be the same as in personal matters?
If there is infinite free speech, then, I could say whatever I wanted. If I was a billionaire, then, I could, in fact, put into the media whatever I wanted to about whatever candidate that I wanted. Bottom line is, that, again, there is always a boundary line between the free speech of people, and where that line is drawn is political.
That's not far from the situation today. Again too much freedom is better than too little.
And infinite fair use is the same as saying there is no such thing as a copyright.
Only if you see fair use as being synonymous with piracy, and not what it really is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Being way ahead in exploiting (I assume you mean the "abuse" definition of exploit, since you bunch are still mainly on the AM waves otherwise) the Internet is nothing to be proud of. Also even if a webmaster or forum administrator tries to act like a dictator, all they'll do is scare off their users. Also they don't have much power beyond what happens on their server.
Good luck with your militia, the guys in Waco didn't make out so well.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Should privacy in business matters be the same as in personal matters?
For that matter, doesn't the President of the USA have a right to privacy? What about any elected leader?
As I said, the right to privacy is not absolute, and where the line is drawn, is a political matter. You've said that businesses do not have the same right to privacy as the personal, and I assume the EFF feels, the same way, and that makes them squarely a political organization.
There's nothing wrong with that... its just don't get all into thinking that organizations like that are all "different" just because they agree with you. You have, that's too bad.
Good luck with your militia, the guys in Waco didn't make out so well
Nah, but, imagine if they had just made IEDs instead.
This is my sig.
It's true that the bills usually get more Republican than Democratic votes when it comes down to the actual voting, but since the Democrats control the leadership and all the committee chairs, they could make these bills be DOA if they wanted to. The Republicans were pretty good at that when they were in power---bills that didn't command a "majority of the majority" were basically never allowed out of committee. I suspect that the Democrats for whatever reason don't actually want to block telecomm immunity, because they could if they really tried.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You: You have no idea if 'the threads of self' are separate or not. You assume they are because you appear to have privileged access to the contents of your own head, and no access to the contents of others' heads. This is appearance, not necessarily fact. We could be living in a simulation where the sentients in the outside context have complete information on our thoughts, as one example.
Me: We could certainly be living in such a simulation. In that case, I can say that the sentients are not all-powerful. That would require only two or one people to be in existance. This is testable. If I ever fall out of the simulation, I will ask those present if they have any limits.
You: Time was created in the big bang, so it useless to speak about what happened before. There was no before.
Me: Consider a multidimensional array. The least significant part wonders what happened before 0. Well, I say that it is something like [infinite][finite] integer. What happened before zero? The previous reality. Again, this is testable and meaningful. If scientists find that the big bang really does represent a singularity, with a doubtful chance of being just a cycle in bang-crunch-bang, then what I think is strengthened.
Comments: There is no reason to cast off all pocket philosophies. I don't think the one you gave deserves to be thrown in the garbage. To me, it raises interesting questions of determinism.
I don't fear zero. I am fascinated by it, like I am about all of mathematics. If you want, I can add something to the start:
0. In the beginning was zero. All possibilities existed, but there were zero of each of them.
Something like that. What are your other "pocket philosophies"? Can you connect them? As long as they are consistent, then you have a good chance of believing it.
I put nonprofit organizations into a different category as big corporations. I suppose you could call the EFF a political organization in the sense that they aim to affect policies, but they don't side with or against any party. So I do put them in a different category than partisan political organizations.
I'm not going to try to talk you out of your IED-building militia of right-wing nutjobs, but you do realize you're no better than any terrorist organization, no saner than any of its members, and that the Patriot act and similar laws that you seem to like so much will only work against you? It's quite funny.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Let me guess, you don't get invited to many parties
I put nonprofit organizations into a different category as big corporations. I suppose you could call the EFF a political organization in the sense that they aim to affect policies, but they don't side with or against any party. So I do put them in a different category than partisan political organizations.
No, the EFF is political, and its partisan, and it exists to make some kind of money for its members. So, its just another money making con job, just like every other one.
I'm not going to try to talk you out of your IED-building militia of right-wing nutjobs, but you do realize you're no better than any terrorist organization, no saner than any of its members, and that the Patriot act and similar laws that you seem to like so much will only work against you? It's quite funny.
And, what makes you assume that I'm in favor of all of this so-called anti-terrorist legislation? I'm really not, and neither are a lot of right wingers. Sure, there's idiots on the right that seem to think that those laws are only meant to go after muslims. All I say to them, and really, the same thing to the left as well, is, if you don't want a government that can abuse its power, then do not give it power to abuse. Sure, they might not mind Bush chasing down a bunch of muzzies, but, the question to really ask, is what would Hitlery do?
It goes back to my original point.... the most dangerous political force in this country today is partisanship itself. Both Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, liberals, etc, are all guilty of the same thing. We think, geez, if our guy gets in, and we give him or her all this power, they will make things right for us. Sure, you can mock us righties as if we looking for a fuhrer to follow, but you lefties are always look for a Ghandi, and I do believe it was John Lennon that said, the only person that can save you is you. But, look at what the candidates promise today... the same old game, give us power, give us money, and we'll prevent someone else from taking your power. So, really, what we have here is a suckers game, a big protection racket where every election we give someone 10% of our rights in order to save a perceived 50%, and now, we've been through so many of these things, we've got no rights left. Seriously, as much as you liberals hate Bush, did you really celebrate Clinton all that much?
You before said that people banding together is a great thing for expressing power, but you are totally wrong. Humans are like grasshoppers. They become like locusts, caught up in whatever cause it is, oblivious to the destruction that they do. Sure, its intoxicating, you feel a part of a million feet stomping in unison on the way to victory, its easier to not think and just crush and not worry and feel good about things. But its still stupid and animalistic, and if you want to be a man, do this: look at all of these money laundering false heros in the face, and tell them to go pound sand. If you want to save your rights, and your power, do not give them to anyone at all.
You don't need to start a Revolution to gain your freedom. You just need to live free.
This is my sig.
One minute you're part of a revolutionary militia, you're anti-privacy, you're ready to lube up and bend over for whatever your favorite politicians or any big corporation wants, and you're calling the EFF partisan (heh explain that one). Then, around the second paragraph of your last post, you spin on a dime and say we all need to bury the hatchet, disband our groups and protect our rights as individuals, and tell the money laundering false heros to pound sand.
You're flip-flopping like a fish out of water. There's medication you can get to deal with that.
Either that or you're trying the ol' "rake everything together and then move it to my side" trick, and it's way too early to try that sort of thing.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You're flip-flopping like a fish out of water. There's medication you can get to deal with that.
No, not at all. The best thing is to get rid of all the organizations. But, if you have to line up, pick one that is prepared to escalate all the way.
By the way, you are the one that's bending over for a religious dogma.
"your privacy good"
"someone else's privacy, bad"
You are sort of a fraud, you know.
This is my sig.
It's more like "personal privacy good, privacy in business and government bad"
"Privacy" in business and government is what allows corruption. It's the opposite of transparency. It's that simple.
When the same horrible CEOs and senators go home I hope they have as much privacy as the rest of us, but when they step into the office they lose all of it, just like any middle/lower class working person today.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's more like "personal privacy good, privacy in business and government bad"
Like I said, that's a political decision. You assume that businesses and governments are bad, but private political organizations are good. I should point though, that the EFF (like most political organizations) is absolutely aweful when it comes to the openness of its own operations. The EFF is actually more secretive than Exxon Mobil. Exxon Mobil must provide annual statements and quarterly statements that can be used to give some idea what they do. They describe exactly the goods they deliver, and at what price, and statements they about all of their communications are regulated by various government agencies. On the other hand, organizations such as EFF do not give you -a thing- about where there money comes from, what's the political affiliation of its donors, board of directors, and so forth.
"Privacy" in business and government is what allows corruption. It's the opposite of transparency. It's that simple
First off, that's not what you said before. You said : "I can't see why there should be any limit on privacy whatsoever", and then added that there should be "infinite privacy rights." Now you backpedal to a more political stance, which is individuals good, corporations bad.
Sadly, even your backpedalled argument is shallow. If you assume that privacy implies criminal behavior, than, doesn't it imply that privacy in one's personal effects also implies criminal behavior? I mean, how many individuals hide behind privacy to steal digital content, commit minor insurance fraud, use illegal drugs, potential terrorist sympthaties, and so forth? And, your own privacy idea is appalling.
This is my sig.
I didn't really backpedal, I just thought that when we were talking about privacy we were talking about individual privacy, as you're the first person who has ever introduced me to the absurd concept of privacy within a business with a straight face.
Now I'll discuss the differences between a business' dealings and an individual's personal life.
An individual's personal life doesn't include other people's money, right off the bat. It's pretty hard to do something that could hurt others in private - let's look at the things you listed.
Piracy - How much damage can you do by pirating things if nobody knows about it? You have to sell pirated content to make money with piracy.
Drug use - Prohibition 2.0, drug use itself doesn't hurt anyone. If you want to get your drugs, you'll need to meet with a drug dealer, and the police are all over that right now. If drugs are legalized, anyone can make their own drugs cheaply (perhaps even buy them at the pharmacy without a prescription), the drug trade dies and drug use becomes, at worst, akin to alcoholism, which isn't illegal right now (not that it should be). If the idea of buying currently illegal drugs at the pharmacy seems strange and ridiculous, consider that you can buy alcohol and cigarettes at a supermarket right now.
Insurance fraud - Medical insurance usually includes a number of health checks, no? Again pretty hard to do in private.
A business on the other hand, is merely a set of transactions in money and service between people. A business is not a sentient being, and therefore I see no reason for it to have any more privacy than a machine. It consists of sentient beings but their personal lives aren't involved in a business' dealings (or at least shouldn't be). A business involves lots of other people's money. A lot of crime can be done within a business, and you're suggesting that there should also be privacy in dealings between businesses, which sends the potential for crime through the roof. That's why transparency is needed. A whole industry could be turned into a black box where money goes in and you get your product out. You eventually end up putting in more money for less product but you can't find out why. Not an appealing idea, to me at least.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
didn't really backpedal, I just thought that when we were talking about privacy we were talking about individual privacy, as you're the first person who has ever introduced me to the absurd concept of privacy within a business with a straight face.
That's probably because you aren't very open minded.
An individual's personal life doesn't include other people's money, right off the bat.
Um, last time I checked, individuals are extremely intertwined, and have other peoples money, either owing, or more.
It's pretty hard to do something that could hurt others in private - let's look at the things you listed.
If so, that's only because the kind of society that the left wing has given us essentially robs the individual of any real power.
Piracy - How much damage can you do by pirating things if nobody knows about it? You have to sell pirated content to make money with piracy.
How much damage could I do to other people if I dump motor oil on my own land?
Drug use - Prohibition 2.0, drug use itself doesn't hurt anyone
That's patently not true. Take a walk down the streets of any major city and have a look at the people sleeping on the gretes. Everyone else around the user has to pick up the pieces from lowered productivity. Now, if we did not have welfare, I'd say, have at it, go ahead, but don't expect me to pick up the pieces when you starve to death. And, I would argue that drug use is a huge part of the growing wealth gap.
If drugs are legalized, anyone can make their own drugs cheaply (perhaps even buy them at the pharmacy without a prescription), the drug trade dies and drug use becomes, at worst, akin to alcoholism
It depends on the drugs. I could see legalizing pot, becuase, even though productivity takes a hit, that, you have to get tested for that hit suggests that its not so bad. Just, people that smoke a lot of pot shouldn't be bitter about ultimately being left behind. Cocaine, pot, oxycodone, and all of the other stuff, though, I can't see being available over the counter. However, I'd rather have it rationed and legal, so long as private companies could get involved. Hell, I'd love to have a legal business selling cocaine to people! It's easy money. However, what I will agree with you on, I hope, is that the present approach to throwing everyone in jail is a crock. 30 years of the war on drugs has been a total failure.
Insurance fraud - Medical insurance usually includes a number of health checks, no? Again pretty hard to do in private.
The medical establishment, from provider to carrier, all condone a larger amount of prescription drug abuse. I mean, look at how many boys are getting slammed into ritalin for being "hyper" or suffering from ADD.
A business on the other hand, is merely a set of transactions in money and service between people. A business is not a sentient being, and therefore I see no reason for it to have any more privacy than a machine.
No, a business is the property of people, just as much as a house or a car is. Businesses are the most human of group activity, besides war. It's not, as you say, a "machine", and you most likely only feel that way because you haven't actually engaged in it or emotionally invested in it. Besides, if machines did become intelligent, wouldn't they have rights? I mean, if there are some animals that have rights, wouldn't machines ultimately have rights at some point?
This is my sig.
Jack Skellington's gonna be PISSED that you're making out with his girlfriend