US Official Urges Americans To Reconsider Privacy

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr. Kurt Opsahl of the EFF said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service. "There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties. We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy." Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, requiring a court order for surveillance on U.S. soil. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.

I, for one...

[Grandiloquence]

I, for one, welcome the impending removal of our old tyrannical police-state masters. www.ronpaul2008.com

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you don't know what specific "essential liberty" Franklin was referring to, do you?

That quote is Ben Franklin saying Quakers in Pennsylvania who "g[a]ve up [their] essential liberty" of BEARING ARMS paid for by the government against Indian and French raids during the French and Indian Wars (known in Europe, IIRC, as the "Seven Year War") deserved what they got: killed.

Your oh-so-fucking-precious quote is a small part of a diatribe against blind, stupid pacifism: those that give up their essential liberty of armed self-defense deserve what they get. You'd know that if you bothered to read the whole damn letter [franklinpapers.org].

Quit taking it out of context.

Re:...and?

[NeverVotedBush]

Not such a good idea because there aren't that many John Doe's. Go for John Smith. Or now, maybe you should change your name to Mohammed Al-Mohammed. Or Juan Sanchez. Or Unique Williams. Or possibly best of all -- Lee Chin.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[TheRequiem13]

Government provisions for socialized health care do not inherently sacrifice privacy. What gives you that idea? As long as the hospitals (etc) abide to patient confidentiality, and the government pays for these hospitals (etc) to operate, there's no issue.

This is really far from an "all or nothing" debate. That's what the government wants you to believe: that in order to provide you with services, security and safety, we need to be able to get into every facet of your life. Don't let them convince you that's how it has to be.

There are choices to be made about everything. The government can provide health care without access to specific patient information. They can provide security without reading your email and listening to your phone calls. Do not for a second believe that one comes with the other. We have choices.

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[FreakWent]

"Look: either the government pervades your life, or it does not."

Here in grown-up land we call that a false dichotomy.

Ninth Amendment is critical to modern 'privacy'

[Kadin2048]

Although it's true that the Ninth Amendment is sort of the red-headed stepchild of the Bill of Rights, it was invoked specifically by Justice Goldberg in his concurring opinion in the landmark case Griswold vs Connecticut, which basically established the unenumerated 'right to privacy' in the United States:

To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...."

In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted [there]...as to be ranked as fundamental."

This opinion was shared by Justices Brennan and Warren, as well. (And I would argue that it turned out to be far more significant than the Court's opinion written by Douglas, which mostly railed about the sanctity and social virtues of marriage and really didn't get into privacy generally.) Although Griswold took on only the rather narrow issue of contraception, and even that only between married couples, the reasoning therein was later applied to other realms.

So although the Ninth does get mentioned far more seldom than it should, its existence is critical and quite central to the current privacy debate. It has not been completely ignored.

If you're interested in reading a layman's introduction to the 'right to privacy' as it has developed through several major USSC cases, I might humbly suggest my own "Right to Privacy Primer [sdf-us.org]" (text version [sdf-us.org]) which I wrote a while back and recently updated.

Re:I, for one...

[Felix Da Rat]

I'm sad to say you're right, Paul has little to no chance of winning. Of even showing up on the ballots. Then again, neither do you or I, so I guess that's a moot point. I'm not sure how you got to nut cases and fascists, but I'd like to learn more of how you came to associate those with Dr. Paul, who from all I can tell wants to tare down centralized government. I guess it is insane to want what we were promised and grew up believing we have.

As for the Roe v Wade issue, I'm not a fan of him on that point. But, and it's a big BUT, his belief (as I understand it) is that should be a personal / community, or state issue, and not federal. Abortions would still be legal with out a doubt in pretty much every blue state, and most likely a fair number of red states. Why is the federal government, which exists for disputes between states involved? This isn't the place to argue that tired old fight (As a bachelor, I'm in favor if it), but I believe that we exist within the laws of our community, and with 250M people some aren't going to like some laws. Find a community which has similar values and laws and live there. You can do that in a state driven country, but not in a federal one.

Heck, all of us tinfoil hat fascist types can have our own state and leave you alone. You can have your like minded state and think we're all insane, and we'll be America, the big dysfunctional family.

Kerr the supervisor of Carnivore

[rfbeck]

I just dug up that Kerr was the supervisor on the FBI's Carnivore program while he was Assistant FBI director.
See http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/06/carnivore.hearing/ [cnn.com]

Re:Privacy never meant annonymity

[falconwolf]

The Right to Privacy, as put forth by the Constitution of the United States of America, never intended for any one to be anonymous. Anonymous people have no voice in the government because they are unkown and faceless. Only those who stand up to be counted, by their vote and their enumeration in a census, can be a part of the government.

You've got thing switched around. According to USSC rulings without anonymity the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech means nothing. As one USSC ruling said if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they do not have freedom of speech. The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.[pdf] [findlaw.com] case is one such case. In Watchtower Bible v. Stratton [epic.org] the USSC upholds "Anonymity, Free Speech." In another case a CATO brief [findlaw.com] argues "Anonymity and Associational Privacy Remain Important Guarantors of Free Political Speech."

Falcon

Re:Finding yourself in Google

[PopeRatzo]

smitty, I think this is a straw argument, this idea that if the government can provide any services to us it absolutely must invade our privacy. This is one of those loopy Reason Magazine assertions that is devoid of meaning and whose only purpose is to make us thing government is a problem.

If we're going to get anywhere as a country, and as a world, we're going to have to stop swallowing this phony conventional wisdom. I've lived and worked in a few places where the residents enjoy a host of public services, far more than we have here in the US: free medicine, free education through University, government pensions, and guess what? They have far more privacy than we have in this country.

In fact, I've recently come back from a symposium in Finland with a side trip to Norway. It was an eye-opener to talk to people who live in a prosperous place, who are quite pleased with their system of publicly funded health care and education, and still believe they are, in fact, running their government instead of the other way around.

The USA is the wealthiest country in the world, one that prides itself on innovation. Well, if we're so goddamn clever, what say we figure out a way to keep families from losing their homes if one of their kids gets sick, and maybe, on this Veteran's Day weekend, figure out a way to keep so many of our returning veterans of our foreign military adventures from becoming homeless (one in four of US homeless are military veterans). While we're at it, maybe we can figure out a way to have elections with results that bear some resemblance to the votes actually cast. Why are so many countries in much worse shape than the US still able to hold elections in which the citizenry have some trust?

No, Smitty, don't get sucked into that Ronald Reagan BS that government is incapable of doing anything right. Just because Reagan's party has spent decades doing their level best to destroy government so his statement can be true doesn't mean there's anything about government that is inherently ineffective or negative.

The last time I had to renew my drivers' license, the DRV was run a lot better than my cable company.

Founding words

[bitmonki]

There seems to be an increasingly accepted view in America that the 'founding words' of our esteemed Founders (women most certainly included) are some sort of 'ideal' to be striven for.

Nothing could be further from the truth -- the Declaration, Constitution, et. al. are practical recipes, written by experienced and reflective authors, a group of people that had personally suffered and/or witnessed the murders, intrusions, seizures, violations, wrongs, indignities and humiliations the Documents are meant prevent. This most certainly includes the right to keep private from the "state" communications between individuals.

(Just who the fuck does this current government think they are, anyway? They were too cowardly to go to the original site for their own first "inauguration" (thats another story) because of the protesters, and its been all downhill since that day. They haven't looked a protester in the eyes since, the gutless wonders, instead they spend mass quantities of cash avoiding them and locking them out of public forums. Heaven forbid that they actually tried to match wits with one.)

I also find the political (for lack of a better word) similarities between then and now ironic, to say the least. The American Revolution was pretty much entirely caused by years of increasing economic and physical depredation, abuse and exploitation by the dominant trans-national "entity" of the day, the British East India Company, an entity that at times employed its own military force, established its own governments, etc.

Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown. Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. (British East India Company, wikipedia.org) [wikipedia.org].

Sound anything like whats happening with the oil in Iraq?

But actually, my favorite part is that smugglers played such a large part in early American history. Dunno why, but that appeals to me sooooooo much. :)

Interesting, too, that lobbyists played a part in the run up to the American Revolution:

The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 angered colonists regarding British decisions on taxing the colonies despite a lack of representation in the Westminster Parliament. One of the protesters was John Hancock. In 1768, Hancock's ship Liberty was seized by customs officials, and he was charged with smuggling. He was defended by John Adams, and the charges were eventually dropped. However, Hancock later faced several hundred more indictments.

Hancock organized a boycott of tea from China sold by the British East India Company, whose sales in the colonies then fell from 320,000 pounds (145,000 kg) to 520 pounds (240 kg). By 1773, the company had large debts, huge stocks of tea in its warehouses and no prospect of selling it because smugglers, such as Hancock, were importing tea without paying import taxes. The British government passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea to the colonies directly and without "payment of any customs or duties whatsoever" in Britain, instead paying the much lower American duty. This tax break allowed the East India Company to sell for lower prices than those offered by the colonial merchants and smugglers.

American colonists, particularly the we

Re:I, for one...

[Cerebus]

Here's a great run-down of Ron Paul's Congressional whack-nuttery:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html [blogspot.com]

A couple of reminders from an American Shithead

[j_f_chamblee]

Tom,

You are flamebaiting troll of a Eurotrash snob and I have no idea how you were ever modded so high. But since I can't do anything about that, here are some things to remember:

1. Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 -- and that was prior to 9/11.

2. There were minor protests before the war in Afghanistan and serious protests leading up to the war in Iraq and beyond.

3. Many of the worst allegations regarding domestic civil-liberties infringements involving most U.S. citizens (i.e., the ones who weren't Muslim) didn't come out until after the 2004 election. Before that, the press was focused on such lovely things as Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay (which I grant you are no picnic either).

4. Take a moment and look across the channel at the United Kingdom [slashdot.org]. They ain't exactly having a civil-liberties hoe-down in England these days.

5. Treating Americans as a unitary group is just as stupid as it would be for people of any other nationality.

Re:I, for one...

[Sloppy]

I know that I disagree with Paul about a few things, but even of the things where we disagree, a lot of these bills really look like he's attempting to get the Feds to defer to states on the issues. In many instances, it looks like he might just be grumpy that the Feds have exceeded their constitutional powers. The fact that the Feds happen to be [ab]using their power in a way that is popular, is beside the point.

If you establish that an relatively unaccountable party should be omnipotent, then that's only a Good Thing for as long as that party acts like your friend. It reminds me of all the Republicans that want to increase executive power, with their heads in the sand when you ask 'em what President Hillary might do with that power.

The blogger looks like he has a lot more 'whack-nuttery' than Ron Paul.

Look at the bills about "educational standards," for example, where the blogger states, "he would weaken educational standards by using Federal power to interfere with states improving their standards for teacher certification". To spin that as somehow anti-education, is ridiculous. Letting states decide their standards, isn't anti-education. Withholding federal funds for education, isn't anti-education. These types of things move education issues closer to home and put the power (and accountability) in the hands of people that a citizen can actually meet with, realistically campaign for/against, etc. Destroying all federal involvement in, and funding for, education would possible be the most spectacular pro- education things that a modern politician in Washington could possibly do. And some crackpot implies that it would weaken education? Sheesh.

And then look at this: "And short of that [cutting taxes] he wants us to pay our income taxes every month, and not use withholding." How could anyone view that as whack-nuttery? Making citizens more aware of, informed about, and involved with their taxes, would be a great way of increasing their civic activism, and overall, promote democracy. Just who is the whack-nut here? I get the feeling the blogger just wants everyone to not think about what their government is doing, and just veg out in front of the TV every night.