Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#31

Post by a-priori »

zecho wrote: post #29
michaelwww wrote: post #24

It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.

I'm unsure why exactly you're being down voted, but unless someone who down voted you comes forward, I'm guessing the answer is in part misogynistic and also in part myopia on the importance of data collection vs. women's reproductive rights. Regardless, it's an important point to make that politicians are complex creatures, just like the rest of us. It's best not to hold them in high regard as people and to instead…

I don't blame people for downvoting michaelwww because their comment is an ad hominem attack on Rand Paul. Paul's attitude on abortion has no bearing on the PRISM lawsuit.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#32

Post by rayiner »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

"No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation." I think one of…

> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this.

What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real search. What's changes now is that people openly broadcast, in clear text, the kind of information that previously would've required a search pursuant to a warrant to find out.

I understand why Rand Paul, as a libertarian, has to pretend that we're deviating from historical practice, though. It's much easier to redefine the status quo them claim you just want to go back to it than to admit that we face an unprecedented situation (protecting the privacy of a populace that seems happy to broadcast their private information all over the internet) which might require novel solutions.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#33

Post by ignostic »

baddox wrote: post #17
u2328 wrote: post #4

Congratulations Obama, Feinstein. You've got me throwing in with Rand Paul. Though I could trust you with our civil liberties and privacy, but now I have to get behind the Ayn Rand loving libertarian on this. So be it; policy over party.

Out of curiosity, what about the political records or statements of Obama and Feinstein made you trust them with civil liberties and privacy?

Obama made plenty of statements that suggested he cares about civil liberties and privacy. Several of these quotes have been passed around:

>"For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

This goes to show you why you should believe what politicians vote and do, and ignore most of what they say. Obama isn't unique in this regard.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#34

Post by DamnYuppie »

cpeterso wrote: post #20
DamnYuppie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am glad to hear people start to admit that policy is more important then party. I believe that is a key step in us moving forward as we need to agree on shared principles that are universal and have a means to insure our elected officials follow through on them.

I sometimes imagine what the US political system would look if all elected positions were "nonpartisan". What if voters had to listen to what politicians were actually saying without the blinders of "Red Team" or "Blue Team"?

I imagine it being quite wonderful. Imagine further if a bill could only contain 1 law in it and it had a built in shelf life of only 10-15 years and had to be renewed by a super majority vote in excess of 75%.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#35

Post by DanielBMarkham »

rayiner wrote: post #32
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

"No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation." I think one of…

> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real sea…

I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government.

The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or whatever, it's simply that it doesn't work.

You can get away with "novel solutions" that won't work long-term for a while, but not indefinitely. Setting up this permanent monitoring infrastructure amounts to a cataclysm for our grandchildren. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#36

Post by DamnYuppie »

zecho wrote: post #26
mindcrime wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, ya never know, once you take the plunge, you might find that you like it here on the dark-side. :-) Libertarians are mostly pretty nice once you get to know them. Some of us are downright friendly at times.

I have no problems with Libertarian individuals (or Republican or Democrats). I have serious issues with a national party that, when I watched their 2004 convention, a man in a Thomas Jefferson costume gave a speech about pot and guns. I thought it was a joke, but it wasn't. It was CSPAN. Unless I myself run for office, I don't think I'll ever find a political party that closely aligns with my beliefs and also takes…

I am not joking when I say you could always start you own. Outline what it is you really believe and verify how your policies, derived from your core beliefs, improve society.

All parties start with one voice, regardless the exercise will bring clarity to the beliefs and values you hold most dear.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#37

Post by ignostic »

salimmadjd wrote: post #2

As a progressive, I have conflicts with some of Rand Paul (and his father Ron) policies and positions. However, you have to admit they're beginning to sound like profits. Like it or not, they adhere to a fairly strict view of the constitution and that's admirable in the current poll-based world of politics. That said, Paul (and father) were never good communicators. Both vocally and even prosaically. I'm surprised he…

I have similar conflicts as a Libertarian!

To add another point: for one election I was deeply involved with the party. I found that many Libertarians went overboard in conspiracy theories: vaccines with trackers, 9/11 truthers, anti-GMO nonsense, etc. I have a really hard time calling myself a Libertarian along with these people.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#38

Post by nhangen »

michaelwww wrote: post #24

It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.

Because he believes that abortion is a state's rights issue, and furthermore, that at some point, the rights of the uterus should be superseded by the rights of the living.

It's not really that hard to grasp is it?

Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#39

Post by habitue »

DamnYuppie wrote: post #34
cpeterso wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes imagine what the US political system would look if all elected positions were "nonpartisan". What if voters had to listen to what politicians were actually saying without the blinders of "Red Team" or "Blue Team"?

I imagine it being quite wonderful. Imagine further if a bill could only contain 1 law in it and it had a built in shelf life of only 10-15 years and had to be renewed by a super majority vote in excess of 75%.

> ...had to be renewed by a super majority vote in excess of 75%

While I'm sure some small government fans would say this is a good thing, the answer is that very little would get done. Symbolic gestures and the like would pass, but very little of real substance. It's commonly the case that most everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but often they disagree on what exactly needs to happen. You can see what happens in the senate when 60+ votes are needed to pass anything.

Re: Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

#40

Post by zecho »

a-priori wrote: post #31
zecho wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unsure why exactly you're being down voted, but unless someone who down voted you comes forward, I'm guessing the answer is in part misogynistic and also in part myopia on the importance of data collection vs. women's reproductive rights. Regardless, it's an important point to make that politicians are complex creatures, just like the rest of us. It's best not to hold them in high regard as people and to instead…

I don't blame people for downvoting michaelwww because their comment is an ad hominem attack on Rand Paul. Paul's attitude on abortion has no bearing on the PRISM lawsuit.

Yes it does. It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. He could build a much stronger coalition among civil libertarians if he were more consistent in his beliefs about the extent to which the government can monitor and control the people who give it power.
Post reply on HN