Comments on: Redefining ‘privacy’

By: Random Name

Random Name — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:34:38 +0000

When liberals are in power, conservatives are the “paranoid rubes.”

When conservatives are in power, liberals are the “paranoid rubes.”

The bread is buttered on both sides.

Report comment to moderator

By: hrw

hrw — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:59:21 +0000

Canada accepting American refugees since 1776; just be sure to avoid the cameras and retina scans on the way out.

John, Solon et al, Hilary thanks you in advance as do her business partners for any information you have forfeited.

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:40:53 +0000

Who trust government or corporations enough to sacrifice their rights and freedoms to them, in exchange for a promise of safety?

I can see it now – some day the government will tell us that in order to safeguard our “privacy” they will need to install a camera in everyone’s home. The government will, of course, outsource the right to “privacy” to a corporation, who will monitor our every move. Conservatives will applaud this because it will give giant contracts to their buddies in the corporate world.

And everyone will live happily ever after in safety.

Report comment to moderator

By: Bianca

Bianca — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:21:13 +0000

Exactly, JJF. My ‘at least we’re safe’ comment was sarcasm.

Report comment to moderator

By: jjf

jjf — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:18:31 +0000

More newspeak from the most Orwellian administration America has ever suffered under. Privacy now means exactly the opposite of privacy — that government and businesses (?!!?) have access to your personal correspondence information, but promise to “properly safeguard” it. What? Who do they think they’re safeguarding it from? The Bill of Rights correctly saw that the organization most likely to impinge upon our privacy was the government itself:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Founders’ idea wasn’t that identity thieves or unscrupulous telemarketers were out to get you — it was that your private correspondence and information is your own business and government has no right to it unless probable cause has been given and a specific warrant has been written.

Without bitterness, I want to suggest that the attitudes espoused by some on this thread — that we should surrender our civil liberties to government in exchange for promises of safety, that honest people have nothing to hide from government — are frankly un-American. America was founded on the concepts of unalienable individual liberties and limited government. If these are no longer important to you, if you would fearfully surrendering power to a monolithic government and live under its auspices, then you are not holding to an American system of government. You are grasping for a fascist government, and hoping it will be benevolent.

Report comment to moderator

By: DC Lawyer

DC Lawyer — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:12:39 +0000

Zanzibar is right on in his first post. As for conservatives, well, true conservatives oppose this administration both on the war and on its unchecked federal spending which has led to a $9 trillion debt and a dollar about as weak as the peso.

I am a patriot because I stand up for the principles this country was founded on. If this country won’t stand for those princples why should I defend her? How can I not oppose her? America is ceasing to be America for me.

Report comment to moderator

By: Zanzibar

Zanzibar — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:29:37 +0000

#9 Anlir,

Although in this case (Bush administration) you are correct, I’d suggest that in principle, conservatives are *usually* in favor of limited government to a greater extent than liberals, who *usuually* tend to want the government to do more for the citizens. There are exceptions of course, this being one of them, but there are also some conservatives that feel that the current administration betrayed some principles of conservativism.

When urgent zeal to protect citizens along with a hazy meaning of the word “patriotism” conflicts with some otherwise typical conservitive values, the end result is something that many citizens of both right and left persuasions reject and do not call their own.

In scenarios like this some words lose meaning. Does “patriotism” mean standing up for people or for principles? Is spying on citizens the best way to “protect” them? In this context, “right” and “left” don’t always mean as much as it used to mean. Quick slap-on labels like these are shown to be pale stereotypes of the subtle nature of people’s actual beliefs.

Report comment to moderator

By: Solon

Solon — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:28:15 +0000

Another 9/11 or two with a small nuclear weapon or lethal chemical/biological weapon might just wake people up to the reality of what these Islamic jihadists are seriously intend.

Meanwhile the paranoid rubes blather on.

Report comment to moderator

By: CCC

CCC — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:29:57 +0000

The word ‘martyr’ has gotten a make-over. Blowing one’s self up in the name of that peaceful religion is now deemed an act of martyrdom.

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:23:26 +0000

Americans are slowly, but surely, giving up their freedom (including privacy) in exchange for a promise of safety. As someone far more eloquent than I said, in the end we will have neither.

If there is one thing I fault the conservatives for, it’s their willingness to subvert individual freedoms for the power of the state. Once you start down that road, there is no turning back.

It will be interesting to see how enthusiastic the conservatives are for this kind of thing when a Democratic President sits in the White House.

Report comment to moderator