RE: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up?

["StyleWar" <stylewar () cox net>]

Hey - why argue?  If you've got a better idea why not just pose it here, so
it can be armchair quarterbacked by the pundits and sniped at by ideologues
from the other side of the room?

Whether you intended or not, the absence of such a proposal appears to
communicate that unless there is total disclosure of *all information* known
or suspected by the good guys, coupled with some sort of consensus process
by all the interested parties before access is granted, that privacy
precludes security...even though:

1. Privacy is not a right established by any clause in the constitution
2. It can only be inferred to be a right as one of a list of things that the
constitution itself should not be used to deny (vis a vis the 9th
amendment).

In the end, it appears there is an insurmountable difference in philosophy.


In the absence of *specific* constitutional privacy protection, I would
argue only that the safety of U.S. citizens be held with greater preference
to their privacy. Logically, the death of the citizen renders privacy
meaningless.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org 
> [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On Behalf Of Fergie
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:01 AM
> To: Dennis.Henderson () umb com
> Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
> Subject: RE: [funsec] RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real 
> Traitors Please Stand Up?
>
> I think it is disingeniuous to say that just because some of 
> us are against domestic surveillance by our own government 
> that we are somehow also against the "war on terrorism" -- 
> that's just plain silly.
>
> Of course we want to catch the terrorists -- we just don't 
> want the government eroding our fundamentally privacy rights 
> in the process. Or violating the fundamental belief in the 
> presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence or probable cause.
>
> - ferg
>
>
>
> -- "Henderson, Dennis K." <Dennis.Henderson () umb com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, security through stupidity, or, terrorists are dumb so 
> the US is ok
> and the press shouldn't reveal what every spy/infiltrator 
> learns in Spying 101.
>
> Huh?  There you go again assuming..... Neither you nor I know 
> what level of sophistication a particular enemy organization 
> works at...  Look at Saddam. He managed to fool the US and 
> many other countries into thinking he had WMDs...(he actually 
> did, but that is another story). 
>
> Its too bad that the media is not supportive of the war on 
> terror(amazing that its so clear where they stand...). Things 
> might be different. The Iraq occupation would probably have 
> already be over. 
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
>  Engineering Architecture for the Internet  
> fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net  ferg's tech 
> blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.