Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Presidential Candidates and Online Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mulhollandj ( 807571 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @09:57AM (#21503813)
    He is the only one who believes in this &#&@* piece of paper called the Constitution. It takes a great man to realize and accept that there are limits on his power and let others govern themselves.
    • Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:07AM (#21503913)
      I agree. Ron Paul is the only candidate who would possibly give any real thought to protecting the internet along with any other form of free speech. Everyone else is for free speech, freedom of assembly, privacy, etc -- as long as it's in support of things they want to say or to. But they're against the privacy, speech and assembly of anyone that disagrees with them. Or more importantly, that they disagree with.

      Of course, as a politician, Ron Paul (if he even actually had a chance), would become just another bullshit politician, so it's all a moot point. You don't become a viable candidate unless you have the support of the establishment (aristocrats, other politicians, corporations, religious organizations and unions). So no matter who you are or what side you supposedly are on or what you purport to be your values, the only viable and successful candidates are the ones who will do the bidding of the aforementioned groups. One may perform the duties of one organization or another slightly more than another candidate, but the degree of variation is minor (which of course is why there is nearly no difference between the two parties -- or even most official independent candidates).

      But of course, people have this misguided believe that all they have to do to change the world is place a vote. Why, if you place a vote, it will ALL change. Bullshit candidates will somehow become viable, despite shirking the establishment and they'll stay true to their word and everyone else will side with them, even though they don't push the agreed upon religious or union agendas. Of course, that's why things will never change. You and I are taught from birth that the bullshit which has been constant for generations is somehow only a vote away from changing. That we have the true power. That, why, one vote can suddenly stop the massive waves of people on the left and right who want to control every aspect of our lives and our thoughts.

      And as long as we buy into that -- and as long as we care more about the next episode of a show where someone dances with famous people or a bunch of nattering hens on a daily morning show or the success of our commercial sports team that share our exact . . . um . . . zip code -- we'll continue to get what we've always gotten. And continue to believe that we're somehow making things change, when they're staying the same.
      • Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)

        by OgreChow ( 206018 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:30AM (#21504165)
        Of course, as a politician, Ron Paul (if he even actually had a chance), would become just another bullshit politician, so it's all a moot point.

        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:5, Informative)

          by paitre ( 32242 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:58AM (#21504495) Journal
          House of Representatives, not Senate.

          Point remains unchanged, though.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by mitgib ( 1156957 )

          Of course, as a politician, Ron Paul (if he even actually had a chance), would become just another bullshit politician, so it's all a moot point.

          As far as I can see, he has yet to become a bullshit politician after years of serving in the senate.

          Other than the fact he is a member of the House, I agree, he has a proven track record. He is quick to state his point of view and just as quick to vote against his own view if it is outside the scope of the Constitution.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by magarity ( 164372 )
      Libertarians are great except that they're isolationists in the jet age and they haven't seen any of their friends or relatives get addicted to hard drugs and waste away.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mulhollandj ( 807571 )
        Friends with all nations but alliances with none. As Ron Paul has said many times our greatest export should be freedom but not through the barrel of a gun. I am firmly against empire building, which the US and many other nations have done for a while. We should be very much involved in world affairs, but not seek to control others.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          I am firmly against empire building, which the US and many other nations have done for a while.

          Right. Because Iraqis, Germans, Italians, Bosnians and Japanese have not had any elections since we introduced forces there. Can you name one sovereign nation that US has ever taken over in order to expand its borders and impose its laws over? Hint: Texas don't count.
          In fact, after WWII the US forced many liberated countries to free their colonies, like Libya, Suriname, Indonesia to name a few.
          You fail it.


          • umm, why doesn't Texas count? Or Northern Mexico. Or the Phillipines. Or Hawaii. Or the Native Tribes (oh, we ALL get to forget about them!). On the point of US not building empires or dictating to its conquered territories, you epic fail. And please try not to be so naive as to think the the US doesn't use its military presence along with its other influence levers to bend the policies of other nations into a more pleasing shape.

            I'm curious if you believe the US would roll over if the elected leaders of

      • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rk ( 6314 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:50AM (#21504387) Journal

        Ignoring the strawman* you've erected for the moment, let's talk about the war on drugs and tell me how you expect to stop the flow of drugs. My brother-in-law got busted for smoking pot in September. Trouble was, at the time he was already in a maximum security prison, and has been for nearly seventeen years now. So please tell me: If we can't keep illicit drugs away from felons in a maximum security prison, how do you propose we keep them away from 300 million people in the third largest country in the world, geographically speaking? If your answer is to turn the entire country into a giant ultra-supermax gulag, you've pretty much admitted defeat in my eyes, as I find that wholly unacceptable.

        * - I have a friend who had a terrible heroin addiction for years. He's been clean for about six years now, but I'm still opposed to the war on drugs. Also, compare and contrast: isolationist vs. non-interventionist. Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Most libertarians are non-interventionists... though it is a fair cop to say some have isolationist tendencies.

      • by Kamots ( 321174 )
        Hmm... you've got an interesting way of deciding which freedoms to support. Anyways...

        One of my best friends barely survived a drug OD; he spent days in a coma. As a result of years of drugs abuse he now hears voices and has suffered horrible memory loss. Currently I don't even know if he's alive any more... it's rather hard to keep up when he's moved out of state and doesn't have anything even resembling a permanent address.

        He made his choices, and while they're not the ones I would have made, it's not
        • by alta ( 1263 )

          it's not my place to tell him what he can and can't do TO HIMSELF

          I think the problem here is what people do to others when they're so high they're out of control and then they hurt other people. I'd also argue that drugs breed crime. Crime which is usually perpetrated against people who are NOT the ones doing drugs.

          If they all used in isolation so others wouldn't be hurt, and drugs were given away freely so they wouldn't breed crime... then it won't hurt anyone else, so let them use.

          it's not my plac

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Kamots ( 321174 )
            My desire is (in short) that people are free to do as they choose as long as thier choices only affect themselves... when your choices start affecting others your choices should be restricted (who restricts and to what degree for what level of affectation I'm not going to get into...)

            Anyways, as for hurting people when high... if I'm making bad choices in how/when/where I'm doing drugs so that I'm placing others at risk, then punish me for that. If I'm responsible and get high in an environment where I'm n
      • He is a republican (Score:2, Insightful)

        by lowell ( 66406 )
        that doesnt want to tell me or you how to live our lives. That sounds refreshing. Also maybe if you were a better friend "you" would do something about your "friends" wasting away on hard drugs and not rely on someone else to do it with my tax dollars.
    • by InvisblePinkUnicorn ( 1126837 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:15AM (#21503987)
      ...until I found out about his opinion regarding the Darfur genocide (watch this excellent Frontline special online [] if you have no clue what is happening over there).

      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 [], 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"
      • "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."

        This should read:

        "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 company."
      • Here is Paul's speech [] in which he confuses the Darfur genocide with the North-South civil war - two completely separate issues (the Sudanese government even said that they were delaying a peace agreement to end the civil war, in order to have a "lasting solution in Darfur" []).
      • by BobMcD ( 601576 )
        Non-intervention is a tough road to follow. There are a lot of issues, like this one that make it very unpalatable indeed.

        The question I would ask, about the genocide situation is: Can we fix it? How can we help?

        If you have one powerful group hell-bent on killing another group there would seem to be only a small number of solutions to this problem.

        Are any of those do-able?

        How did the powerful get that way? Why aren't those being killed fighting back? Is there anywhere they could go? Can we simply kill
        • Please do not confuse divestment with intervention - there is too much at stake for people to (purposely or ignorantly) confuse the two. There's a big difference between the US government saying to companies, "if you are providing the Sudan government with the equipment to help them mow down their own people, then you will not be entitled to any US government contracts" (ie, divestment) and the US government sending troops over there to protect the victims (intervention).

          I can understand Paul being again
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by FiloEleven ( 602040 )
        I'm willing to bet that his main reason for opposing the bill is found in this sentence:

        By allowing State and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security

        Knowing how much monetary matters concern him, and how strictly small-government he is, this seems the most probable driving force behind his "no" vote.

        • If he kept it that simple, maybe I could understand, but he had to pad his speeches with more convincing (less harsh) but false and spurious arguments.
      • Actually, having just read both your references and a bit more, I think his rationale is quite valid. Maybe not perfect, but certainly justifiable.

        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 gen
    • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timster ( 32400 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:17AM (#21504015)
      What are you talking about? The Constitution says nothing about Internet privacy, so Ron Paul would leave that issue to local control or the free market. Consider his position on the FDA -- he says that it's not necessary for any government body to ensure that drugs or supplements are safe because people will stop buying from companies that sell dangerous ones. Such a president wouldn't care if Google is snooping your search results -- they'd tell you to deal with it or use some other search engine.

      Don't get me wrong -- Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, and there are great advantages to a constitutional form of government. I just think that he's becoming the new Ralph Nader, with this underground movement which considers him the solution to all of our problems. He's certainly not the solution to Internet privacy concerns.
      • MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:28AM (#21504121)
        Now this is a post that needs to be modded up! Everything timster wrote is completely true. Ron Paul makes the ridiculously huge assumption that everyone that takes part in our society is totally informed on everything and that they will use that knowledge in making their choices. Reality has shown us time and time again that that is not the case.
      • A very good summary of Paul's general views. While I was entirely supportive of Ron Paul until very recently [], I do agree with a lot of the Constitutional "hands off" approaches, however I believe that this only works up to a point. Companies are much too skilled at fucking people over these days. It doesn't make sense any longer for a government to assume that the free market will just work itself out. It's ignorance more than anything that drives these sweeping arguments that are basically saying "leave me
      • by BobMcD ( 601576 )
        Actually, the 4th addresses the issue of privacy, as it pertains to the government, pretty well. Likewise, the commerce clause would enable Congress to pass laws in this arena when dealing with businesses. For the remainder, a president like Paul would enable the State and local authorities, and would give them the power to serve their constituents.

        Just because he's against a large oppressive Federal government doesn't mean he is against ALL government.

        And on this specific issue, I think he is correct. F
        • "For example, if your ISP is spying on you, and you don't want that, you would be able to take appropriate action: change ISP's, use encryption, use Tor, etc."

          I live in an apartment and only have one choice of ISP. What do you suggest I do? I also edit Wikipedia a lot, and Wikipedia has banned most Tor IPs. What do you suggest I do?
          • by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
            I live in an apartment and only have one choice of ISP. What do you suggest I do? I also edit Wikipedia a lot, and Wikipedia has banned most Tor IPs. What do you suggest I do?

            Your edits at Wikipedia are logged anyway. So what would be the pont of using Tor? If you make a lot of edits you must surely have an account -- if only to defend your edits against reversion and being declared a "vandal" by some officious Wikitwat.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by sseaman ( 931799 )
      He is the only one who believes in this &#&@* piece of paper called the Constitution.

      Except for the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like, and wants to amend, as he admits on his own website [].

      I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

      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?

      • by Ucklak ( 755284 )
        He's also rabidly pro-life

        What's wrong with having that decision on the states or even better, the local municipalities?

        As a male, I don't have a dog in that fight. I can respect both sides of the issue but face it, we're not all New Englanders, Southerners, Mid-westerners, Westerners, or whatever. Tough decisions are better made locally than federally.

      • What's wrong with amending the Constitution? It was made to be amended. It's the people who try to breach the Constitution without legally amending it that are the problem. As far as Roe vs. Wade, just because the current political climate seems to be pro-abortion (we'll assume that for argument's sake), does that mean we shouldn't entertain further discourse? And where in the Constitution does it plainly say that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT reserves the right to regulate pregnancies? In fact, it says that a
    • by RyoShin ( 610051 )
      I recently had to do research on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act [], which included reading the debate in the House of Reps about it. Ron Paul was one of those who stood up to speak near the end, but instead of stating support or opposition to the bill (or substitute), he went on a fairly long speech about this being a state's right and not something that Congress can enact upon.

      It seems that he kind of skirted the issue at hand (one can take that he was opposed to both ideas, but he doesn't say it explicit
    • After reading your post I pulled up a searchable copy of the full text of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I did a search on "privacy" and all I got was the link to the privacy policy of the website--the word is apparently not found in the Constitution.

      The only thing I could find in the document that seems to make any sense whatsoever of your statement is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution regarding unreasonable search and seizure. I suppose it may apply if a person's email etc sitting on someon
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tm2b ( 42473 )
      Except that he doesn't believe that Federal individual protections apply to states. I don't expect much help from him against anybody *but* the federal government.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rtechie ( 244489 )
      Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate I'm aware of that has publicly declared that they consider privacy to be Constitutional right and has fiercely opposed Bush's internet surveillance program.

      Ron Paul voted for the FISA extension that allows warrantless wiretaps (unlike Kucinich). He has also voted for numerous "save the children" Internet bills to ban online pornography. He has also voted against consumer protection regulations that would limit private business' ability to collect personal information. H
  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @09:59AM (#21503839)
    I'd like to know everyone's opinion about which presidential candidate
    Before it even starts, can we just mod the entire discussion 'troll' and 'flamebait'? Instead of trawling for opinions, please browse either the Senate voting records or gubernatorial voting records of the candidates.
    • First post nailed this one right away. While I'm interested in each candidates view on the internet and internet privacy, I could care less about other people's opinion of these views. Especially given that most opinions posted will likely be filled with self-serving touting of some candidates and tearing others down.
    • Wait a minute, thats EXACTLY what a freedom hater liberal would say!!

      Freedom hater!!

      Freedom hater!!
  • Dennis Kucinich (Score:5, Informative)

    by _bug_ ( 112702 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:01AM (#21503851) Journal
    Haven't seen or heard anything specific to online privacy. I'd be willing to be it's low on the list of issues for most.

    I'd guess Dennis Kucinich [] given his website statements regarding the Patriot Act [] 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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by sunami ( 751539 )
      From that link:
      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.
    • Re:Dennis Kucinich (Score:4, Informative)

      by Eravnrekaree ( 467752 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:55AM (#21504463)
      Kucinich does support net neutrality: []

      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.
  • by Lally Singh ( 3427 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:04AM (#21503885) Journal
    but it's an invasion of the candidate's privacy.
  • Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)

    by faloi ( 738831 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:04AM (#21503889)
    I don't think he's got a shot at really getting elected, but of all the candidates he seems to be the most likely to stand up for Constitutional rights. Second to him is, for Internet privacy at least, is possibly Obama. I don't think Obama can stay away from the pull of Hollywood and various *AA's to maintain full Internet privacy though.

    The rest either don't care so much about the Constitution or are so far in the pockets of special interests that the only thing I can be sure of is that it's going to continue being a bumpy ride for the next four years.
    • Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:10AM (#21503931)
      Like most politicians, Obama will support the internet policies that his lobbiests tell him to support.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I find him to be refreshingly contrary for a politician. He was just talking up open data formats, despite the fact that Microsoft is building a 500 million dollar data ceneter in his state.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Elemenope ( 905108 )

      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

    • by BobMcD ( 601576 )

      I don't think he's got a shot at really getting elected, but of all the candidates he seems to be the most likely to stand up for Constitutional rights.

      I agree, and would add that he is the only one I'm aware of that is not a big fan of the war on terror. When asked in New Hampshire about what he would do to 'repeal the PATRIOT Act', he said that it wouldn't be possible for the President alone to do that. His plan, then, would be to simply not use the powers it grants, and wait for it to expire while working with Congress to get it fixed.

      My fear about most of the rest of the field is that they would continue to use 'terrorism' to further their political

  • Not their job. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:08AM (#21503919) Journal
    It's the executive branch's job to uphold the law... but as it is right now, there's no shortage of laws that pay lip service to the need of ISPs and such to keep private e-mail private, while another batch of laws circumvent this in a wide array of circumstances both dealing with national security and private matter. Say, a publicly traded company can't exactly keep e-mail secure if there potential for insider trading.

    Not that the public really has a clue, though... Sadly, we've learned that our local public schools will gladly hand over authority to the federal government in exchange for a few measly dollars, so any presidential candidate could make a promise dealing with a matter that he/she officially has no role in, and you can be that laws will be passed and departments created that make it their role.
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:11AM (#21503941)
    Simple as that. Privacy means less control, and by going into politics, they already proved that they want to be in control. Furthermore, more privacy for you means less information for the industry, i.e. the ones that gave the politicians money.

    Privacy isn't something any politician will give you. Privacy is something you have to take if you want it. Voting for privacy simply won't work.
    • I wouldn't say that ALL politicians are in it for the power; just all the major party candidates. Ralph Nader, for all the complaints about him, was one of the few honest politicians who actually wanted to help the general public (and did, for decades, before becoming a politician). Major parties can't afford to have people like Nader running, because as you say, their money comes from industries and Nader has never been a friend of big businesses.

      Unfortunately, of the major party candidates, I can only

    • This is generally true. Unless someone runs on a platform of decreasing the role of the government. Have you really not hear d any of Ron Paul's positions?
    • Also, by running for president the candidates give up most of their own privacy. Their past will be scrutinized, their associates drilled for secrets, everything they say will be protocolled, every mistake reported in the media the next day.

      Anyone willing to put up with that does not value his own privacy very high, so is unlikely to value others right to privacy much either.
  • FredDC (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FredDC ( 1048502 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:12AM (#21503949)
    I'm not an American, but because the US is so influential in the world these elections are also important and interesting to me. This will have an indirect result on my life as well.

    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!
    • Unfortunately what US citizens realize seems to have very little effect on US laws or military actions. In theory, US citizens should be able to vote for a candidate that supports their opinions on matters, but in practice virtually none do. The entire exercise of electing presidents and senators is essentially a giant gamble to find the lesser evil of the bunch, further complicated by inconsistent and indecisive voting among the public. I think that the close elections that have become all to prevalent rec
    • by apt142 ( 574425 )
      How did this get marked as a troll?

      The US's internal policies have a huge effect on the world. Why wouldn't it? We as a nation have our noses in every other country's businesses and we have the attitude that it's the right thing to do. Whether that's the correct attitude, I'll leave to another flamefest.
  • And given Slashdot's international audience nowadays, will we do this for every country holding elections?
  • Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:15AM (#21503989)
    Ron Paul's stance on Privacy and Personal Liberty [].

    "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."
  • Remember (Score:4, Insightful)

    by usul294 ( 1163169 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:16AM (#21504011)
    Right to privacy is not a specific constitutional right. It is inferred from a couple different amendments,(3,4,10 I believe) so claiming that someone who is a strict constitutionalist would be big supporter of privacy would not work. That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist, but it does mean that it is open to more interpretation than other "rights". I always hate a "right to privacy" debate, because it doesn't have any sort of set definition.
    • The right to privacy exists because the constitution does not give the government power to infringe on your privacy. The bill of rights is merely reiterating something that you already have. Remember the bill of rights is not an enumeration of your rights, but a listing of some the government is being explicitly forbidden to infringe on. People have rights. The Government has powers granted to it by the people.
    • Re:Remember (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dr. Donuts ( 232269 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:49AM (#21504377)
      You've got it exactly backwards, and unfortunately many folks have a hard time understanding Constitutional logic.

      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.
    • That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist

      Except the constitution (and the Bill of Rights) doesn't define what our rights are. It defines the powers granted to the Federal Government, and consequently the rights they can intrude upon, and those that they are explicity forbidden to intrude upon.

      Too bad the Supreme Court, since practically day one, has been redefining what that means ever since, despite warnings early on.

      Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. Let us not
  • It depends on where the money is flowing. And for the Govt./business there's plenty of cash to be had in selling our rights. Political affiliation makes no difference. Though I support business growth, big and small, .
    • by BobMcD ( 601576 )
      If you can find any evidence of Ron Paul 'selling our rights' I will gladly eat my hat.

      I'll even post it on YouTube.

      We've had a lot of Jack Johnson and John Jackson over the years, but this candidate is different, and you should really check him out.
  • []

    According to a Ponemon Institute survey written up on, people think Obama is the candidate most likely to care about privacy, and Giuliani is the one most likely to care the least. There's some errors in the survey results (of course Ron Paul got less than 5 percent, nobody knows who the fuck he is), but its interesting to see.

    Of course this only bares a vague resemblance to the candidates' *actual* stances on privacy...
  • Ron Paul (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FlyByPC ( 841016 )
    Well, I'll get modded down for this for sure -- but I feel the need to point out that:
    * There are many individuals who would consider a total ban on abortions to be a major invasion of privacy, and
    * Ron Paul is, from the statements on his website, 100% against any sort of legal abortion.

    Other than that (and some deep skepticism about his idea to eliminate the Fed), he really does sound like a straight shooter. I respect the man, but can't vote for him.
    • I think it's a mistake for social liberals to consider abortion an unquestionably liberal thing to support. Unlike free speech, gay rights, so on and so forth, abortion is not necessarily victimless. It's not a question of whether you do or don't support individual freedom. It's a question of when a collection of cells becomes an individual. If someone wants to err on the side of not-murdering versus not-ruining-a-young-woman's-next-twenty-years, that shouldn't pigeonhole them them as authoritarians.
    • Your reading comprehension needs some work. He is against federal regulation of pregnancy, which is the de facto situation right now and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as that right is reserved to the states and the people by default. I also fail to see how the legality of abortion, regardless of one's position on the matter, has anything to do with privacy. If abortion is currently legal, but one was required to report all abortions to the newspaper, that would be a privacy issue.
    • We also have the issue of the rights of the infant, who is also a human being. Just because the infant is still in the womb does not mean it is not a sentient, emotional, feeling human being. Abortion of children, especially after the 1 to 2 month period when the neurological system becomes active, is the violent murder of a human being. Even aborting the baby before then is denying and ending a life, that otherwise would develop into a fully aware and conscious being. But to abort the baby after 2 months w
  • For the vast majority, if not all, of the Presidential candidates who stand anything approaching a chance of winning this election:

    - For protecting their own privacy on the Internet
    - Against protecting your privacy on the Internet

    I hope that helps.

  • Dennis Kucinich (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eravnrekaree ( 467752 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:35AM (#21504215)
    Dennis Kucinich has repeatedly voted against bills that would deprive americans of their freedom and privacy. He voted against the Patriot Act which erodes away key civil liberties, and the "Thought Crime Bill" [] , which could be, which is so broadly worded and loosely defined it could be used against peaceful activists. Even Ron Paul did not vote against the Thought Crime Bill. Kucinich was one of only 6 representatives to vote against it. If you want freedom, and you want your liberties preserved, the best choice is Kucinich.
  • by iminplaya ( 723125 )
    But if the election was between him and Kucinich, at least we would have a horse race. With our present slate of front runners, you can forget about any kind of privacy, online or off. We have a long way to go before civil rights becomes a real issue again.
  • IAASPS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Digitus1337 ( 671442 ) <lk_digitus@ho[ ] ['tma' in gap]> on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @10:59AM (#21504501) Homepage
    (I Am A Student of Political Science)

    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.
  • Here... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sir_Real ( 179104 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @11:06AM (#21504591)
    Both of the slashdot users that won't be voting Ron Paul can enjoy their own thread.

Did you hear that two rabbits escaped from the zoo and so far they have only recaptured 116 of them?