Presidential Candidates and Online Privacy 475
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.
Dennis Kucinich (Score:5, Informative)
I'd guess Dennis Kucinich [dennis4president.com] given his website statements regarding the Patriot Act [dennis4president.com] and other government policies that deal with (directly or indirectly) an individual's privacy. I would expect that view extends to the online world.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Informative)
Ditto on Paul, Obama...though I maintain the naive hope that Obama is more independent of those interests than we might assume. What I like about Obama in addition is his stance about the government's privacy rights; namely, he doesn't think there are any. His stance on government online operability and transparency is refreshing and, so far, unreplicated by the others, even Paul. IIRC, he did some good stuff on both in the Illinois legislature dduring his stint there; caught my eye.
So sensible you would have thought someone would have shot those two by now. (Kidding, Secret Service! Kidding...). :) This sort of reasonable and principled policy approach cannot be allowed to mainstream in American politics!
I was absolutely pro-Ron Paul until... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [govtrack.us], 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 (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
Re:Dennis Kucinich (Score:2, Informative)
Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate to have voted against the Patriot Act. He did something the others should have: He actually read the bill
(my emphasis)
I think that right there is a wonderful reason to not vote for the other candidates.
Link to Paul's completely confused speech (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:2, Informative)
Except for the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like, and wants to amend, as he admits on his own website [ronpaul2008.com].
He's also rabidly pro-life. While I won't argue the merits of Roe vs. Wade, the majority of American courts have considered a woman's right to choose a fundamental Constitutional right for 30 years. Perhaps he's only pro-Constitution on issues you care about?
Dennis Kucinich (Score:5, Informative)
Divestment IS NOT intervention (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Dennis Kucinich (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.freepress.net/news/23995 [freepress.net]
He has also been one of the strongest supports of civil liberties in the house and has repeatedly voted down legislation that erodes away americans civil liberties.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
Point remains unchanged, though.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:2, Informative)
As far as I can see, he has yet to become a bullshit politician after years of serving in the senate.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Informative)
The loophole is that the government can simply fill its intelligence and law enforcement database with equivalent data purchased on the open market.
This is a perfect illustration of the problem of looking at government as the sole source of privacy concerns. Once everybody can find out things about your private life, you can't stop the government from knowing too.
Re:Divestment IS NOT intervention (Score:4, Informative)
Learn about Divestment [sudandivestment.org]
Divestment status [sudandivestment.org]
Divestment legislation status [sudandivestment.org]
you are uninformed or malicious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:2, Informative)
I guess I'll have to tell my Korean sister in law an my half Venezuelan nephew I'm like David Duke.