AP:
A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Feinstein is voting to give immunity to the Telco's that sold your secrets to the Bushies.
So it's not just the Repiblicans who have become the thought police.
If you don't think Clinton will crush the last breath out of your privacy, you folks are going to have a very rude awakening.
This is OT but I don't know where to post general site comments. I was wondering why our oil spill up here in the San Francisco Bay Area hasn't garnered (from what I can tell) a significant story on the front page at Huff Post. We're pretty devastated up here by what this spill is doing to our wildlife, our bay and our ecosystem. It looks like incompetence and mismanagement might be part of the picture as well.
Maybe I missed the story here and I apologize if that's true. But aren't Arianna and a decent portion of the celebrity blogging crew based in LA? It would be nice to think that our LA neighbors cared a little. We certainly do care about the recent wildfires . . . and the writers' strike (which we know is affecting a monumental number of economic lives).
Just saying . . .
I can't believe he said all that with a straight face. It sounds like something The Onion would produce, and yet he obviously expects sentient beings with more than two conversing brain cells to take him seriously. There are none so sad as those who are parodying themselves without realising it...
The real problem is that I for one do not trust the government to protect me or my interests by gathering all that data. And this administration is the most corrupt one since Nixon. If they actually did some good and knew how to target bad guys that would be one thing, but fishing expeditions that include data lists of 750,000 suspected terrorists are simply crap. The next step is to declare everybody suspect and declare martial law to make sure no one makes a wrong move without the secret police watching.
That is where we are headed and that is why we need to fight this idea. Of course, if you are comfortable with an American STASI or KGB to keep tabs on you (no worries if you do nothing wrong - a big lie)then have it. But don't complain when you are arrested for calling the "Dear Leader" a bad name, or refusing to go to the established church.
If you don't think it can't happen here, remember that for evil to triumph all good people need to do is nothing (in our case, go shopping and ignore the erosion of liberty in the holy name of security).
No. I beg to differ. Government needs to change their definition of safety. If one compares relative risk, there is a much higher probability of death from failing to wear a seatbelt than from a terrorist attack. Conservatives and especially libertarians complain about 'nanny state' policies requiring seat belt use. Yet they have no problem with making us take off our shoes in the airport because one fool tried to light a shoe bomb. They won't let more than three ounces of deodorant in your luggage, because one could make an explosive in-flight (given a few hours hiding in the bathroom with a couple liquids and a good bit of scientific equipment). It is foolish to yield privacy for such petty threats.
The republican party wants you scared because they think they benefit at the polls on daddy-like protection.
I'll stand on my own, free, thank you very much....
America needs to change its definition of privacy? Hardly. Instead, this horrid little fascist needs to remember the definition of democracy.
There's worse things than dying, and one of them is to sacrifice freedom on the altar of security. Would-be dictators hope you will forget that. Cowards already have.
Someone should change his definition of employment.
Better read the AP write-up before reacting?
Sounds like they're "creating their own reality" again.
And people continue to think we live in a democracy. Denial is a terrible thing.
And where are the Democrats who we voted into office to clean up all these abuses? Sitting on their hands crying about not enough votes to do anything. Great. Thanks a lot.
And meanwhile, the Democrats who we voted into office to clean up this swamp, just sit there are wring their hands. Pitiful. Who to vote for anymore?
That the government wants a new definition of privacy is is correct but about 30 years late.
We actually started giving up our privacy sometime in the late 60's or early 70's when banks started requiring our social security numbers in order to open an account. From then on, our identities have
have been spreading around like an oil slick on water.
Kerr wants all of is to disregard the great "privacy" lesson of our time: The Valerie Plame outing and the trashing of Joe Wilson.
Kerr's selling of corporate and government "trust" in our private information only works if there are no political dissenters among us, no challenging of authority. The Plame/Wilson tragedy occurred because Wilson dared to speak the truth to the powerful, who were disseminating destructive and deadly lies. After that, the powerful attempted to ruin both of them.
That's what any of us could expect under Kerr's vision of America.
That tingling stinging burning aching nauseous sensation means its working...
Loading comments…
First Posted: 11-11-07 11:01 AM | Updated: 03-28-08 02:45 AM