Privacy
It doesn’t mean what you think it means:
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 no longer can 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.
In other news, as is the trend, there is consideration for giving telecom companies immunity:
The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people’s private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
RE: it doesn’t mean what you think it means
Wow, it’s like it’s 1993 all over again.
Wow, talk about your NewSpeak.
RE:telecom companies immunity
Threat Level has been covering this extensively. There are some eye opening graphs here. There’s some coverage of Mark Klein and his insight on how throughly the FedGoonz are scraping teh web of ‘net, looking for the terrorists, and monitoring those who would protest against honey-baked hams
Lean Left covers the “immunity for telco corporate-personhood thingys” and manages not to say “Democrats”, (To be fair, there also isn’t a reference to Republicans either).
Telco Immunity is something we can’t just let slide by. with broad based bipartisan congress-critter support.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.”
Who the hell is this cull to decide what constitutes privacy? I’ll bet that HE would’nt want anyone invading HIS privacy!
November 12th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
All the dancing around this issue won’t fix it. When such as this becomes prohibitively dangerous for them to do, they will hide it better. Hiding it doesn’t sound like a win until one realizes that they cannot then use it as justification for taking ever more power without exposing the fact they are doing it.
Until we decide to not be sheep and instead develop some teeth and the will to use them we will be the ones eaten.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Wow! Have I got some great examples of the government safeguarding “private” information. Businesses don’t have a good track record either. I should do a post on this…
November 16th, 2007 at 9:44 am
[…] that guy that said we had to change the definition of privacy because, err, not sure why? Well, turns out the reporter got it wrong: The reporter got it wrong. […]