Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Privacy Candidate

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the right-from-the-left dept.

Privacy 593

Alsee writes "Wired News reports 'electronic civil libertarians' hearts are a-twitter' over US Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton's bold stance on the right to privacy. Wired quotes Clinton: 'At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date.' Clinton gave a speech last June to the American Constitution Society (text, WMF) in which she addressed electronic surveillance, consumer opt-in vs. opt-out, cyber-security, commercial and government handling of personal data, data offshoring, data leaks, and even genetic discrimination." Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

cancel ×

593 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The right to privacy is underrated (5, Insightful)

Lord Grey (463613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793370)

Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

Not only would it sway my vote, but a positive stance on privacy would damn-near guarantee it. Over the years, the U.S. government has eroded its citizens' rights to the point of absurdity. This latest president has only made a bad situation worse.

There are other issues at stake, of course, but none quite as dear as those that hit close to home. I'm tired of watching my privacy dwindle away, and I want it to stop.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (0, Redundant)

Simon Garlick (104721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793376)

Not only would it sway my vote, but a positive stance on privacy would damn-near guarantee it.

I couldn't agree more.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793768)

Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

Not a presidential candidate. They have almost no domestic power; they can't make law, and they can't do a whole lot to stop law from passing unless it was marginal in the first place. The most important factor of a president's stance is the foreign policy stance, because there, as Bush has demonstrated, they have a lot of discretion and they can, again as Bush has demonstrated, make quite a mess. They can break the law, of course (again as Bush has demonstrated) but then again, so can anyone in the chain of command that leads to the pawn with the inductive tap, the capacitive sensor, or the digital network access. As far as the law of the land goes, it's your congresscritters and senators you need to think about.

That's not to say that I'm not happy with the stated position; I am. I'm also very much a proponent of universal healthcare, and she's demonstrated at least once that she favored it, at least at the time. Hopefully, she'll stick with that, but again, congress is where these things matter the most, and those views can't be selected "all at once." They are of course selected by lobbyists and not voters, anyway, and between insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and lawyers, we won't be getting universal healthcare no matter if it was the raving, foaming at the mouth single issue for a presidential candidate.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (5, Insightful)

jofny (540291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793400)

The right to privacy goes hand in hand with the right to free speech and, as such, is one of the rights that must absolutely be kept healthy to sustain our country. Without it, the rest falls apart. So yes, the right to privacy is one of thekey issues for me when considering candidates.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793642)

I'm not saying that the right to privacy shouldn't be taken into consideration but when it is a defining factor then it will only get worse.

We don't have fixes to welfare or unemployment because we need them as issues to run on. We cannot have some government body fixing itself out of a job either. At best we can have numbers that are acceptable to some but not others. And this it the reason that it will get worse.

Some politician's main platform stands on continuously fixing the existing issues of what seems wrong. When this is determined as a deciding factor for a vote, it will be yet another never fixed issue that gets people elected. As for Senator Clinton being a pro privacy advocate? I would say that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It was her husband who started echelon and green lantern were some computer searches calls and emails for buzzwords then tells a live agent when something is found. Of course that was her husband and not her. But I would suggest that she could have been more vocal about it back then instead of running the race with it now. And YES, I believe this question is more or less a trial balloon to see if it is good enough to campaign on. But this doesn't surprise me much. Slashdot was more or less a republican bashing ground lass election.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793402)

Don't vote on what they say, vote on what they have done. I don't know Hillary's record on privacy, but I suspect it is not good. Check her voting record in the Senate. Talk is cheap.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793436)

I don't know Hillary's record on privacy, but I suspect it is not good.

If you don't know her voting record, then on what are you basing your suspicion?

Personal bias? Political leanings? Fox News?

Or are you just trying to create some baseless FUD?

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (4, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793572)

No, he was merely asking people to think, and to check if there's actually any truth in what she says. She is a politician after all.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (2, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793658)

If they're willing to at least talk about it and make it an issue, they're already miles ahead of the other guys on the issue.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793720)

Thank you! If I was able to get mod points (I haven't had them in years) I would put you through to +500.

Hillary has proven that she *only* talks ("Think of the children!"). If you think that she can "think of the children" and protect us all from the evils of the Internet while protecting our privacy at the same time, you're wrong.

The only way I would vote for her is if President GWB rewrote the books so that he could run for a third term and she was the only other option.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (2, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793404)

I'm tired of watching my privacy dwindle away, and I want it to stop.

    Don't you think it's rude to watch it so closely?

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (-1, Flamebait)

hutchy (31659) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793452)

A-hole

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793456)

Not only would it sway my vote, but a positive stance on privacy would damn-near guarantee it.

Damn straight. In fact, the only thing that could sway my vote more is a truly sane policy on copyright law.

Re:The right to privacy is unde (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793464)

> I'm tired of watching my privacy dwindle away

Haven't you read spun's journal [slashdot.org] ? If you don't like the existing social contract you're free to move to another country. According to them you're only hurting the greater good of society by insisting that you have any Constitutionally guaranteed rights, or that the government has any Constitutionally imposed limitations on power.

If one believes spun's journal entry then the US is, by all rights, a socialist state with a Constitution only for the sake of convenient argument when media releases and sound bites are needed.

Re:The right to privacy is unde (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793514)

From the blog entry, near the beginning:

Hey, if you do not like the social contract you were born into, you are free to leave and find a country where you can be your own selfish self.

I don't think it's necessary to read much further. The "social contract you were born into" is not the social contract that exists today. Today's so-called social contract is worse. Those that have been around the block a few times recognize it as such, and further recognize that it can be changed.

Re:The right to privacy is unde (1)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793804)

Let me get this straight. You're

  1. Citing an incoherant rant on why libertarianism is bad, and
  2. not evaluating or interpreting his argument, but rather
  3. letting his remarkably low user id # (1352) lend him credibility, then
  4. using this to claim that privacy, free speech, due process, etc are bad.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793466)

There are other issues at stake, of course, but none quite as dear as those that hit close to home.
Which is exactly why this issue is being raised - it's an emotional appeal that makes you forget about the rights that aren't being defended or are actively being eroded. What good is a right to privacy without the right to free speech or the right to bear arms?

Any politician that talks about rights - especially the "right du jour" which is privacy - has no credibility with me when they promote a strong federal government and intend to wield power of the same to accomplish personal/partisan goals that have nothing to do with protecting our rights.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (1)

cunamara (937584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793538)

The question separates whether a politician's stance on privacy would influence your vote from whether you would vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton./p>

For me, the answer to the first point is "definitely yes." I place a very high value on my privacy, whether we are talking about protecting my privacy from government or from business. I surf with cookies turned off, for example, and accept them on a case-by-case basis. It's amazing sometimes that a single Web page may try to set 10 cookies, half of which belong to third party sites.

The answer to the second question is "it depends." It depends on who the alternatives are, for one thing. HRC versus Rudy Guiliani? HRC versus John McCain? HRC versus Jeb Bush? HRC versus Mike Huckabee? Hillary gets my vote.

Olmstead vs. United States (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793702)

Justice Brandeis called it "... the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized men. "

Might guarnatee my vote too... (4, Interesting)

raehl (609729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793734)

For a candidate running for Senator or Representative.

For a presidential candidate, their stand on privacy really doesn't matter, just like their stand on a whole host of other things that Congress gets to determine doesn't matter.

Now, a stand on privacy is not to be confused with a stand on constitutional rights. Whether mailling lists are opt-in or not, or what kind of opt-in they have to be, isn't a constitutional issue. But having a president who believes being president doesn't give them the right to listen to my phone calls, or detain me without trial, is DEFINITELY a constitutional issue.

So, having a stand on privacy is a non-issue for me. If you want to grab my attention, promise to recind every invasive executive order from the Bush presidency. Promise to avoid signing statements. Promise to institute executive orders that prohibit you and future presidents and their respective executive branches from taking the same liberties with our liberties as this one has.

Taking a stand on who can see my credit report is a cop-out when the issue of when, and if, I get to see a lawyer is on the table.

Re:The right to privacy is underrated (1)

quixote9 (999874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793810)

Absolutely. I've been real turned off by Hillary, but suddenly she's front and center. I don't even care if she's pandering. Pandering like that, I can use.

yesno (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793380)

Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

      Yes, sure I --

      *bzzzt!*

      Ouch! Er... I mean, no, no I wouldn't.

Clinton is a joke and a liar (-1, Flamebait)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793406)

If she says she's for "privacy", she means only where it's an invasion of her husband's propensity for pussy.

Anybody who buys a politician's "soundbites" - especially a Clinton (or Bush) soundbite - has to have their head examined for leaks. And that goes for all Republican AND Democratic politicians.

Re:Clinton is a joke and a liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793648)

"..and you can take THAT to the bank.."

Re:Clinton is a joke and a liar (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793662)

So since ab initio you declare all politicians equal (-ly corrupt) and the differences to be merely a matter of taste, there is no point in actually doing the work and comparing what they actually have to say, or their actual programs, thereby letting them get away with not even having real solid programs anymore even more easily. Well done. Very convenient for you, very lazy. And on top of it all you can even look down on those stupid suckers who actually care about the political process!

Your attitude is a real threat to democracy, and stupid, and self-fulfilling. Thank you for doing your part in killing honest political and social discourse on the issues that matter. Yes, such discourse is difficult and tiring. It involves questioning whether Clinton was, as another poster put it, preaching to the choir or actually serious. But this discourse is the core political process of democracy. As long as you don't actively participate in it and try to get others engaged as well you have no right whatsoever to complain about the state of politics.

Meaning what one says... (5, Interesting)

Eldragon (163969) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793410)

The real question is, did she say what she did because she wanted to preach to the choir, or because she actually believes in privacy?

It was the American Constitution Society after all...

Re:Meaning what one says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793496)

The real question is, did she say what she did because she wanted to preach to the choir, or because she actually believes in privacy?
There's the rub. What I'd really like to hear is a prospective candidate (either party) stand on a platform that includes protecting our privacy. Maybe they could mention it on the campaign trail too, you know, so they can actually claim a mandate to do something once in office.

Re:Meaning what one says... (1)

saider (177166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793592)


In the past, she has advocated a national ID card and a national medical card (all your info in one easily indexed number), I'm guessing she's blowing hot air without fully understanding how this contradicts with her other agendas.

Re:Meaning what one says... (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793790)

It seems you don't, either. The national medical card initiative is designed to give doctors access to your complete medical history to cut down on the staggering number of errors, and the utter lack of knowledge available to health care professionals when you're away from your home hospital.

National ID cards are no more a violation of privacy than having a driver's license. These simply provide identification for everyone in the country in lieu of having state IDs or no ID at all.

The existence of this information has legitimate uses; privacy concerns center on the protection of this information and controlling access to appropriate parties. You come off sounding as though you're against bank accounts, credit cards, and signing your name on university enrollments.

but but but (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793414)

A girl!

You should not have looked! (3, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793780)

Did you invade her privacy to determine that she's a girl?

Re:but but but (2, Interesting)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793802)

I know. If we get a Clinton/Obama '08 ticket we can get over two residual prejudices at the same time. As an added bonus the Democrats might actually manage to not drop the ball.

oh great (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793418)

I'm sure most of the slashdot crowd will vote for Hillary since she's promising this.

Of course the right to privacy is far more important than Iran and North Korea getting their hands on nuclear weapons, so let us elect a dove who will make our mortal enemies fear her words of peace and complete lack of action when dealing with the harsh reality of the world.

You people make me want to puke.

Re:oh great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793506)

As opposed to Bush who goes in their guns blazing and still doesn't get anything accomplished(not to mention that so far he's done nothing at all about North Korea or Iran).

Personally speaking I'd much rather have someone who @##$s up foreign policy without getting anyone killed, than someone who *(@$&E#(s it up just as much, but gets thousands of people killed in the process.

Re:oh great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793518)

Of course the right to privacy is far more important than Iran and North Korea getting their hands on nuclear weapons,

Absolutely anonymous troll, WE MUST GIVE UP OUR PRIVACY to prevent Iran and North Korea getting their hands on nuclear weapons. WTF? I don't understand how those arguments are related.

BTW, you do realize that that pussy bush didn't manage to prevent North Korea getting their hands on nuclear weapons?

A Quick Lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793612)

Do not fuck with women, they are evil, heartless bitches [tripod.com] Wouldn't Iran being pwned by a girl add insult to injury?

Call yourself a patriot, hell hath no fury!

Re:oh great (1)

alfs boner (963844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793622)

No one cares what you think, babykiller.

What I wonder is (4, Insightful)

iguana (8083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793420)

if privacy isn't important, why do homes have curtains?

Re:What I wonder is (2, Funny)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793628)

to keep the light out???

"Ethanol's neat," Clinton says to corn growers. (4, Insightful)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793424)

Clinton gave a speech last June to the American Constitution Society

Uh-huh. Tell me what she says at the Society for People Unreasonably Afraid That Their Children Are Going To Die in Terrorist Attacks, and then we'll decide if she gets points for this.

Re:"Ethanol's neat," Clinton says to corn growers. (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793826)

the Society for People Unreasonably Afraid That Their Children Are Going To Die in Terrorist Attacks
Didn't they shorten the name to "America"?

Hillary =! privacy (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793428)

Not bashing her just beacuse, but her history does not support her intent to protect privacy. This is just poliical rhetoric to get elected. ( typical of *all* candidates as they ramp up towards an election )

Wrong way of thinking, but a good start (3, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793430)

No, a strong stance on the right to privacy won't sway my vote. All politicians of all levels of government should respect this, regardless of party.

However, a stance against personal privacy will strongly sway me against you. Fortunately for Hillary and other pro-privacy advocates, many candidates are easy to admit they'd spy, loot, and plunder in the name of "the children".

No thanks (5, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793432)

I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.

Re:No thanks (1)

markb (6556) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793444)

Yup, she's pretty damn far from being a civil libertarian. She's just pandering, as politicians do.

Re:No thanks (1)

honkycat (249849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793606)

Unless, maybe, she agrees with the civil libertarian perspective on privacy but not on other issues. I guess that's impossible, since every politician falls completely into line with a particular well-established party line (except where they're pandering)...

Re:No thanks (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793470)

Yep, and that, not this, will be her campaign for president. I heard recently that the only other serious candidate is a black dude. So yeah, the US being what it is, I guess she has already won.

Re:No thanks (1)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793520)

I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.

Please point me to the candidate who says we don't need to protect children from violent video games.

Re:No thanks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793586)

Please tell me who does not need to protected from violent video games. Those damn games, it is not safe to go out at night with them out there waiting. Protect me, Hillary! Please protect me!

Re:No thanks (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793710)

Please point me to the candidate who says we don't need to protect children from violent video games.
Whoever these guys [lp.org] choose as their official candidate.

Re:No thanks (5, Interesting)

noz (253073) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793600)

I've already seen her stance on video games, that's all I needed to know.
Like all things in life, voting is about balance. Sure, if one particular policy offends you so much, you will vote for the opponent, but enough of the opponent's policies may offend you too. You must also consider that video games may be trivial in comparison to other policies, such as liberties. It is your vote.

In Australia we have a preferential voting system which I believe empowers voters to rank candidates - hopefully by policy (possibly in descending order of evil *grin*) - but we do have compulsory voting: the merits of which are debatable.

In fact, they often reduce our federal elections to a one-policy debate: economics. Compulsory voting with the threat of higher interest rates under the potential leadership of the opposition arguably scares the politically unmotivated or uneducated to vote with this threat in mind.

As Bill Hicks once said, "There are more important things to vote with than your wallet."

Hilary, Hilary, Hilary... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793442)

Wasn't she the Senator who wanted to force government regulation of video games? [gamespot.com]

So, um, no. I don't think I'd vote for her regardless of what her stance of privacy is.

Re:Hilary, Hilary, Hilary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793792)

Funny, this is exactly the issue that turned me against her. I had had every confidence that she'd be a very acceptable candidate for me, until then. I read her reasoning, and frankly, I came away with the view that she is a terrific pandler. In this case, pandling to frightened parents. Since then I have payed attention to her positions and I still have that impression. I'll never hate or be scared of her like the Rush Nuts, but she's lost my support by making decisions based on what popular conception is rather than seeking truth.

This would be nice, were it not Hillary (4, Insightful)

straponego (521991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793448)

You want a consistent defender of privacy rights, look toward Patrick Leahy or Russ Feingold. Hillary... just today she stated that she wants *all* US troops out of Iraq by the time the next President takes office, so that she doesn't have to take the blame for the "surrender." Well, gee, you should have thought of that before you voted for the war, dontcha think? Their is no way that there will be zero US troops in Iraq in 2008 or in 2018. You know this. You don't want to face the consequences of your actions, any of them, ever. And this makes you more trustworthy than Bush... how?

Now, you may say that this is not germane to the privacy issue. But it is, because it shows that Hillary will say anything, at any time, to acquire and hold power. The value of her promises is null. The value of her insight is null. The value of her candidacy is negative, because it is most likely going to give the Presidency to those she claims to fight, while mimicking as closely as possible.

Re:This would be nice, were it not Hillary (1)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793608)

But she was misled! That is why she voted for the war. No one told her that the war might have had a downside! There were no resources like history books or the like that she could have consulted that would tell her that starting a war might not be the best idea ever. So we can forgive her for being misled.

No Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793454)

While it is nice to see someone support privacy, there is no way I would support Clinton in '08. There are just too many other issues where her stance is totally the opposite of how I feel. She could promise free gold bricks for every man, woman and child in the US and I still would not vote for her.

Besides, we had two Bushes, and now two Clintons?!? Call me crazy, but something just dosent sit right with me on this...

I'd take the free gold bricks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793832)

with me to New Zealand.

I only know (3, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793458)

I won't be voting for Bush.

Re:I only know (3, Funny)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793508)

I won't be voting for Bush.
Oh, really [wikipedia.org] ??

Re:I only know (1)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793536)

Well I guess that's good you're not writing in some imaginary candidate named Bush since there isn't a Bush running. Good lord. You're only about 3 years too late.

Re:I only know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793546)

You Americans have really got to get away from the hereditary rule of the Bush's and Clinton's. If you guys elect Hilary that will mean at least 24 consecutive years where a member of one of those families has been President.

Re:I only know (1)

samwh (921444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793732)

I don't think anyone will vote for Jeb (if he even runs)

her idea of privacy (5, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793468)

Hillary Clinton's idea of "privacy" is about the same as that behind the "Medical Privacy Act". This made it a Federal offense to disclose medical records, standardized the records keeping, and made it all available to the government upon request. To her "privacy" is that between civilians; the government and its employees are a whole 'nother matter.

Never ever would I vote for her (1, Insightful)

strike6 (823490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793472)

She's a carpetbagger who stayed with her cheating husband for political gain. Why would I trust a word coming out of her mouth?

Re:Never ever would I vote for her (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793742)

She's a carpetbagger who stayed with her cheating husband for political gain.

Really? You know that for sure? There's no chance she just still loves the guy she was married to for most of her life, and forgave him? Or maybe she just thought it would be worse, personally, to go off on her own at that point? Has no girl ever been cheated on by someone with no political clout and stayed married?

Hell, maybe they're just open-minded and she had been sleeping with Giuliani since 1985, and she just had to pretend to be mad about Monica.

I don't know, maybe she did stay for politics. I don't particularly like her, but if you also don't, it should be for a reason that isn't just speculation about why she stayed married. I'm sure you have plenty of political disagreements with her. Pick one of those.

I have to wonder... (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793474)

...what events in Clinton's life might have motivated her push for more privacy? Muhahahaha!

Possibly. (1)

nehumanuscrede (624750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793478)

However, show me ANY politician that has kept their campaign promises. Ever.
I can't think of any myself. . . . . .

The candidates have a bad habit of latching onto a current high profile issue
( ergo, privacy ) and making all the claims in the world about how they plan
to ' fix ' it. Time passes and the same issues are still issues years later
after the aforementioned politician has been elected.

To answer the question, I would say yes ONLY IF the candidate actually stuck to
their guns and delivered on their campaign promises.

Until there is some kind of accountability for all the promises they make, then
my answer is, unfortunately, no. It's just pre-election fluff imo.

Should make it a provision for re-election. You don't deliver on your past promises,
you become ineligible for any further terms.

Re:Possibly. (1)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793596)

However, show me ANY politician that has kept their campaign promises. Ever.

Bush promised not to pull the troops out of Iraq.

NORML (3, Insightful)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793480)

One of NORML's [norml.org] primary arguments about private (ie: 'at home') consumption is that it is protected under the Constitutional "right to privacy".

Hillary? Is this just going to be about electronic surveillance and security of digital information repositories?
Or are you going to tackle the larger issue of protecting personal activities in private spaces. ...Because those the rocks that many ships have wrecked upon.

Re:Sig (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793510)

Not only is the housing bubble worse than you think...

I spent the summer in downtown San Diego. Being homeless I had little better to do than watch the city lights and window curtains. After five months of careful observation I have determined the following: greater than 50% of the apartment/condo units (excepting the SROs and the bug-infested dives which most of the lower income people crowd into like sardines) in downtown San Diego have been unoccupied for longer than two months.

I can see why some of the homeless are forced into homeless recycling programs due to their demonstrated lack of respect for surroundings (trash, vandalism, excessive drinking or hard drug use leading to large parties with any number of people who also leave trash, take part in vandalism, participate in excessive drinking or hard drug use, leading to theft and crime and etc. etc. etc.)...

But there truly is no housing shortage. There isn't a shortage of jobs for people with my qualifications either. It's all just another segment of the social game.

Am I the only one.... (3, Insightful)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793504)

Am I the only one thinking that privacy is more of a perception than a reality?

I mean, I'm posting this over a wifi connection that I perceive to be secure, using a name and password that I believe is uncompromised...

Then again, I am using a cantenna to connect to a router that is perceived to be secure from the viewpoint of the guy providing me with free bandwidth, shared iTunes, and an OS with remote support enabled, and the 'guest' account allowed to be part of the 'everyone' group...

Re:Am I the only one.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793630)

That guy knows you're there, and he doesn't give a fuck.

In fact ... he's watching YOU.

Re:Am I the only one.... (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793670)

Touche.

However, you've further proven my point :)

It would if I believed them (1)

Mad-cat (134809) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793512)

I've reached a point of total cynicism in voting. I assume that everything a candidate claims to believe or promises to do is a lie. I either vote for an incumbent if I like their record, or for the newcomer if I don't like the incumbent's record.

Until we get a new system that allows the people to throw out someone in office, I won't vote for anyone based on their campaign.

other issues are more important to me... (1)

carlivar (119811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793548)

Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

Yes, but this candidate's support of national health care cancels it out. I don't want to be forced to pay for other people's health care (especially filtered through government bureaucracy, ugh).

Let the flames begin...

Re:other issues are more important to me... (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793748)

Yeah, I wouldn't understand anyone voting for a Democrat if they wanted civil liberties. More corporate welfare, more socialist wealth transfer to the corporations. No thanks.

Not hers (5, Insightful)

lewp (95638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793550)

Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

Not hers. She's a US Senator, former First Lady, and the democratic front-runner for the presidential nomination in 2008. She's been in the public eye for years, she's wielded real power for years, is perhaps the most influential woman in the US after Oprah (seriously...); and yet our privacy has continued to be diminished on her watch without so much as a peep. You apparently have to go back to a talk she gave to the American Constitution Society to even know what her stance on personal privacy is, and I had to go to Wikipedia to find out who they are. Where's the public outrage if you care about privacy so much, Hillary? Lord knows you don't have a hard time getting in front of a TV camera with a chance to express it.

Will I support a candidate who's serious about protecting personal privacy? Hell yes. It's the most important issue I can think of. Hillary Clinton isn't that person, and neither is any other mainstream candidate. Pretty fucking sad.

"Right to privacy" (3, Insightful)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793568)

My problem with this is the use of the phrase "right to privacy." Clinton is a brilliant lawyer, and I know that she understands what "right to privacy" means in the legal sense. The "right to privacy" is the (supposedly) constitutionally protected right for a person to make decisions intimately affecting their own lives. This "right to privacy" allows a person to raise and educate their children as they see fit (allowing Amish people to educate their kids at home despite laws mandating public education for all), have an abortion prior to the time the fetus is viable, marry across racial lines, use birth control, cohabitate, and a few other like things.

This "right to privacy" does not apply to personal information out there on the internet. There might be laws protecting some aspects of this information, but it isn't a constitutional thing.

Clinton knows this. Non-lawyer tech geeks don't know this. She's using this lack of knowledge about what the legal term "right to privacy" means, intentionally allowing techies to confuse it with their concept of right to privacy, trying to attract votes.

Don't be fooled. The right to have information about yourself be private is purely statutory (without such a statute, there is no such right). This is not a constitutional right. It is fleeting. Don't let Clinton convince you that judges would extend this "right to privacy" to personal information (the judges know better, just like Clinton does).

It's one of the touchstones (1)

Walter Wart (181556) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793588)

Civil liberties, resistance to the surveillance/police state, privacy, being willing to stand up for citizens against the corporate looters, a decent stand on the RKBA. Those are all very important. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is only on the right side of one of these what with her DLC-"triangulation" strategy. Give me a real Democrat or even a Barry Goldwater Republican.

For privacy and DMCA enforcement? (1)

kireK (254264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793594)

OK...how she she be for privacy but also for open records to enforce the DMCA?
She lobbied for DMCA enforcement through methods that violate your privacy.... but then to another auduance she says we need more privacy?

So, a normal politican... a different stance for a different groups.

Publicly: YES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793610)

Privately: NO

Please try to remember... (5, Informative)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793616)

...that even among other such politicians, Hillary is one of the most blatant, shameless populists ever to have walked the Earth. Her perspectives, her very mind itself in its' entirety is completely for sale, for the purpose of gaining votes.

She might be making noises about the "right to privacy," right now, but please try and remember that when Jack Thompson and the other usual suspects were screeching and crying about violence in video games, she supported that, too. She tries to determine which way the wind is blowing, and when she suspects that she has, then jumps on what she feels is the dominant voter bandwagon at any given point in time. But she is not the archetypical Slashbot's friend...or really anyone else's, for that matter.

Re:Please try to remember... (1)

illuminatedwax (537131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793690)

Exactly — she's the Tipper Gore kind of liberal who would prefer government censorship to actual parenting. She may talk big about piracy because it's become a huge issue the Democrats can latch onto, but she'll be first in line to make RFID collars if children's saftey is even the smallest bit involved.

Do we really have to go back and forth between two horrible, terrible political extremes?

Re:Please try to remember... (4, Funny)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793752)

...that even among other such politicians, Hillary is one of the most blatant, shameless populists ever to have walked the Earth. Her perspectives, her very mind itself in its' entirety is completely for sale, for the purpose of gaining votes.
On the one hand, I think what you are saying is she has no opinion of your own, but on the other hand what I'm hearing when you say this is: "She will support the opinion that the majority want," which is the point of a representational government.

I'd say if she were serving the wants of the people, that's significantly better than many, many politicians that server the wants of themselves. It's a strange idea, I know, but you do want your policymakers to listen to the will of the people and support it, and you'd like them to do that even when it is at odds with their own personal belief, if a sufficient majority of the nation wishes a particular change.

I guess what you see is a bad thing, is actually a good thing in my book. Do you want your leader's vote to be for sale to the most powerful lobby, or would you rather it be for sale to the public opinion of the majority? The question isn't whether her opinion can be swayed. The question is who can do it. The point of her stance on Iraq is she and every other member of congress was LIED TO, and made their decisions based on LIES. People actually criticize our policy makers when they do an about face after realizing they were lied to. That's pretty sad.

Re:Please try to remember... (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793778)

And, on a bigger scale, let's not forget that it's usually the minority party that is clamoring about individual rights. Then the party becomes the party in power, and the roles switch.

Same old.

Consider (1)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793618)

Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?
Would you consider a candidate's support of the Constitution important enough to sway your vote?

Ron Paul? (2, Interesting)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793624)

Why is he not the for runner of this article? He is greatly opposed to the govt's invasion of privacy, he strongly opposed the REALID Act, and he continues to argue for INDIVIDUAL'S rights.

Re:Ron Paul? (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793746)

I'm even more opposed to the invasion of privacy, so why isn't the article about me? As a write in candidate, I also have a nearly equal chance of winning as Ron Paul does.

Re:Ron Paul? (3, Interesting)

isotope23 (210590) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793820)

It will be interesting to see if any of the other republican candidates have the balls to debate him.
I think they'll try anything they can think of to keep him out of any potential debates. It would be intersting to see. As far as I know he is the only guy running who opposed the war in iraq, is anti
patriot act/ realid act, supports gun rights, and has consistently voted against pork.
  Hell I'd just love to see a debate between him and the flunkies the GOP is running.

I've never voted for a Rep, but I'd vote for him in a minute.

Privacy isn't the only issue (1)

Nutty_Irishman (729030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793646)

One of the top 5 issues that slashdotters are probably concerned about are globalization/free trade/offshoring. Unfortunately, her views on globalization are not too slashdot friendly http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_C linton_Free_Trade.htm [ontheissues.org] . This is of course assuming that pro-free trade promotes offshoring/offsourcing while protectionism would not. Her views on globalization have been flip-flopping recently, so it will be interesting to see what side she takes when election time comes.

My personal problem with globalization are an escalating trade deficit combined with opening up free-trade to countries with questionable human rights issues-- something Hillary has supported in the past. A good video to check out would be Mardi Gras: Made in China [mardigrasmadeinchina.com] (Caution: There are two trailer options, one is work safe, one is not, choose wisely).

Re:Privacy isn't the only issue (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793726)

She's against free trade, it even says so right there. She's pro "fair trade" which means anti free trade.

That's why she got such a poor rating from the Cato institute.

You are assuming slashdotters are for damaging protectionist trade policies, I think you would be surprised.

Very powerful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17793650)

I am traditionally a more conservative voter. I normally would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is pro-choice. However, the ability to reinforce the privacy laws that we have eroded over the last 20 years, I believe would be worth the risk. Besides it is about damn time the US got off its idiotic old boys club and elected a woman.

P.S. I didn't vote for Bill either of his two terms, although I will say overall he was a good president.

God, I wish I could believe. (1, Insightful)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793664)

Unfortunately, I suspect that HC would say what ever was necessary to win, and then wouldn't follow through on her promises. I'm not a Republican - and if I were (and I could be objective about it) I'd want Clinton to win. Examine her voting record - she's very conservative. I don't think Obama is much of a choice either. Frankly, I'm hoping that Gore runs again.

Wrong question. (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793684)

Seriously who wrote that question and how long have they lived in the US? I think anyone with a brain at this point knows a politicians words mean nothing.

The real question is:

1) Who's funding her and do those people have anything to gain by eroding privacy?
2) What's her previous track record? What was she doing about the Patriot Act? etc etc.

Gun Ownership- The Ultimate Guarantee of Privacy (0, Flamebait)

josephtd (817237) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793688)

What are all of the anti-gin slashdotters going to do when the Government continues to assert that your rights come FROM the Government. Hillary Clinton is a joke. The last Clinton regime armed China. The next will prevent any more pesky assertion of indiviual rights. Welcoem to the collective, I hope you folks are ready to immerser yourselves in a society that allows privacy as long as you toe the party line. Night folks.

Yes but... (1)

sigzero (914876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793692)

I do not believe for a nano second that Hillary Clinton means that. She might want YOU to believe that so that you will VOTE for her.

Yeah, but where does she... (5, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793698)

...stand on the First Amendment? Remember Hillary was the Senator leading the charge against Take2/Rockstar over Hot Coffee.

Politicians (1)

McFortner (881162) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793722)

Would you consider a candidate's stand on privacy important enough to sway your vote?

No, because a politician does not have to be held accountable to what he says in a campaign. They can (and often do) lie their backsides off to get a vote and never intend to do what they promised. I would pay more attention to how they
  • have
voted as an determination if I would vote for them or not. Remember, their only job is to make sure they get re-elected. Every thing else is secondary to that role. Michael

It WOULD sway my vote... (1)

Teechur007 (305420) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793796)

...but I don't trust much that comes out of the mouths of politicians who are stumping for office...

/not paranoid

//why, what did *they* tell you?

Hell, I'd even start a new party (1)

CrystalFalcon (233559) | more than 7 years ago | (#17793836)

Yes, it's important. It's one of the paramount issues we face today. Hell, I'd not only support a candidate that talked about privacy (there aren't any in Sweden), I'd even start a new party focused on privacy and the right to a private life.

Oh, wait. I did. [piratpartiet.se] And it was reasonably successful too, although the privacy debate is just starting out in Sweden...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>