Defining privacy down
By Libby
By the time this administration finishes redefining the meaning of democracy in America, we're going to need a whole new dictionary. Not only has the meaning of torture has been twisted into an excuse for criminal conduct as long as it's used against the 'right' people, a top US intelligence official tells us we've got our expectations of privacy all wrong.
Since when has privacy and anonymity been synonymous? Do these people think we all ended our intellectual advancement at the level of My Pet Goat?
Nobody expects their public persona to be protected, but we do have a reasonable expectation that our private communications remain just that -- private. I don't recall anybody passing a law saying the government had the inherent right to collect them and keep them in a database forever for future use as long as it 'protected them properly.' As if they don't already fail to do so regularly as evidenced by the periodic hacks of supposedly secure systems.
Frankly I find the suggestion that concerns over privacy are just a hysterical over-reaction to progress in a "post 9/11 world" to be not only dangerous but insulting.
By the time this administration finishes redefining the meaning of democracy in America, we're going to need a whole new dictionary. Not only has the meaning of torture has been twisted into an excuse for criminal conduct as long as it's used against the 'right' people, a top US intelligence official tells us we've got our expectations of privacy all wrong.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
Since when has privacy and anonymity been synonymous? Do these people think we all ended our intellectual advancement at the level of My Pet Goat?
Nobody expects their public persona to be protected, but we do have a reasonable expectation that our private communications remain just that -- private. I don't recall anybody passing a law saying the government had the inherent right to collect them and keep them in a database forever for future use as long as it 'protected them properly.' As if they don't already fail to do so regularly as evidenced by the periodic hacks of supposedly secure systems.
Frankly I find the suggestion that concerns over privacy are just a hysterical over-reaction to progress in a "post 9/11 world" to be not only dangerous but insulting.
Labels: Bush Administration, domestic surveillance, rule of law
posted by Libby Spencer at 4:16 PM
3 Comments:
Ron Paul is the only candidate of either party who will work to protect our privacy.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/privacy-and-personal-liberty/
I changed party affiliation to vote for him. You can too!
Elizabeth
I'm not sure that half of us wouldn't struggle to read My Pet Goat and maybe the rest of us are too scared of everything from poisonous toys to cancer and car accidents and terrorists and gangs and people running amok with guns and not getting the right vitamins and not drinking the right brand of water.
What does freedom and liberty mean to a bunch of hysterical cowards who know nothing?
Clinton gave the power to sue to a group of people. They made an announcement about people's privacy. They also forced people to see and hear and they were worse than animals. Only these can sue.
Who is it and what are they?
Post a Comment
<< Home