The New Privacy
Written by Sam on November 12th, 2007WASHINGTON - As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.Privacy can no longer mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.Kerr’s comments come as Congress is reviewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
No, we don’t need to change our definition of privacy, what we need to do is give Donald Kerr a swift kick in the ass. The government is not there to be the guardians of our private information. They are, in fact, the ones our information should be guarded against. This administration is using the War of Terror as a guise to slowly roll out a police state.
12
PM
Whoa, Sam, be careful. When Democrats say exactly what you just said, we are accused of not being patriotic.
12
PM
Uh, Sam, seriously? Bush is creating a police state?
I’m trying to hold my tongue here.
You can criticize this or any other administration for doing things with regards to civil liberties that you don’t like.
Don’t give the nutroots credence by using emotional words like “police state.” This site is better than that and I’d expect more reasonable rhetoric from a front-page poster.
12
PM
I’m not certain how else you would characterize it when the members of the Federal government decide that they should be the keepers of our private information. Where is that in the Constitution?
Was Ben Franklin spouting leftist rhetoric when he said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety?”
I think not.
12
PM
Sam, I just want you to know that as I’m sitting in my office procrastinating grading some midterms, I just gave you applause.
13
AM
I agree with Langley. Do you guys understand what a police state is? I agree Kerr was out of line but stay away from the emotional buzz words.
As a long-time front page poster I am starting to think this blog has lost its way from promoting movement conservatism.
13
PM
Since 9-11 there has been a lot of bending of the Constitution by the Bush Administration, not to mention other legislative initiatives such as the Patriot Act which have some provisions I don’t care for. You can certainly make the argument that some of this is for a good cause, but that still doesn’t make it Constitutionally viable. While this administration may use these executive powers they keep declaring they have for good reasons, how do we know that future administrations won’t abuse them.
Rights are not taken overnight, they are chipped away at slowly over time and every bit you fork over to the Fed you will never get them back.
You have cities like Chicago putting up cameras all over the place in name of “safety”. You have the governor of Texas signing off on requiring 11 year old girls to be vaccinated against HPV. Today, there is an article on Drudge regarding a New Jersey school with security cameras all over the place linking straight to the local police station where they can be constantly monitored. No, not all of these are attributed to Bush Administration, but this is being done by Republicans and Democrats alike.
In my opinion, defending personal freedom falls into line with limited government and movement conservatism but judging by some of the responses I get here, maybe I’m wrong and conservatives are happy to hand over their liberties when Washington asks for it in the name of “security”.
13
PM
I completely agree with you. The administration has overstepped its bounds. I just caution you on using emotionally tied quips like “police state”.
13
PM
I feel the same way as Michael does, Sam. The guy’s statements are absurd and should be criticized. That doesn’t mean you need to give the nutroots credence by claiming that “Bush is trying to create a police state.”