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.
FredDC (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:1, Interesting)
Ah yes, legalization of drugs, of course (waaaay off topic). You'll vote for any of the other politicians because they've had their friends and relatives get addicted to hard drugs and waste away in pound-me-in-the-ass prison? Of course, isn't it funny for something the other politicians claim is so terrible that they have to throw the people doing it to themselves in prison that the politicians never seem to end up in prison when it's they're the ones doing it?
The fact that criminalization is just throwing people in prison and billions of dollars down the drain and has done little to solve the problem is lost on you. Is it really being "tough on crime" when it hasn't done jack shit for crime?
Re:Remember (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
IAASPS (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I was absolutely pro-Ron Paul until... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not sure where you got that idea. I don't think that's at all what Ron Paul is trying to do here. We've got many issues which are still not directly controlled by the federal government, but I don't think anybody would argue that the only reason they're not is because "everyone that takes part in our society is totally informed on everything and that they will use that knowledge in making their choices".
Our system of government is based on this little document called the U.S. Constitution. (Bizarrely, most of the presidential candidates don't seem to have read it.) It spells out very clearly what the federal government is allowed to do. Right now, it's overstepping those bounds in a very big way. (Fun fact: the populous being "totally informed" and using "knowledge in making their choices" is not actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution! Yes, you have freedom of religion even if you have no knowledge of all other religions.)
Ron Paul says that ignoring the Constitution is bad for any number of reasons. He is proposing to bring the government back in line with what the Constitution actually says. I still have not heard an intelligent argument against this.
He has also tried to get our representatives to go the other way. For example, he asked them to declare war; they immediately shot it down. Now *this* is the problem! The federal government isn't even trying to follow the Constitution any more.
Ron Paul's approach is the simpler one: hack pieces off the federal government until it is. The other approach would be to keep doing the same things, but change the Constitution (we call it "amending") and laws and policies as needed. Nobody's even trying to do that, AFAIK. If Bush had proposed an Extraordinary Rendition Amendment, there would be much debate, and he would be flamed to a crisp, and that would be that.
I like Ron Paul these days not because I agree with all (or even most) of his policies, but simply because what he says and what he does are in agreement, and that provides the basis for talking intelligently about things, and changing things. (Maybe he was mistaken about the facts in Darfur, but at least his argument followed logically from his principles and understanding. If you've got representatives whose argument is "Darfur, evil! US, good! Must mix!", how do you even begin to discuss it?)
When you've got a president who says "I'll uphold the Constitution" and then has secret prisons in third-world countries, for example, you can't even have a conversation about how to interpret the Constitution because it's not even on their radar, and everything's clouded in lies. OK, Bush is the worst at that, but pretty much all of the other candidates this election seem to have that bone, to one degree or another.
Darfur Genocide and Acts In Congress (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
Re:Controversial Views Decided In Communities (Score:3, Interesting)
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.