OK: Pirate Party Slams Google CEO on Transparency, Privacy and Surveillance
From the Oklahoma Pirate Party via http://thirdpartydaily.blogspot.com/:
“In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it.” – Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
There is so much wrong with this statement that we are having a hard time even deciding where to start. The Government will always attempt to increase the monitoring of the governed, and the self appointed leaders of the internet are only too eager to assist. Being able to identify all individual users, as well as being able to track their location and all activities, will benefit the business side of the online world more than anybody.
“True transparency and no anonymity” – Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
We have to admit that Mr. Schmidt is a master at marketing, and to be able to market effectively you have to be a master at spinning the truth. Transparency, after all, is a noble cause. Who would say no to transparency? It is one of the main issues the Pirate Party is pursuing. Mr. Schmidt picked his words very wisely, but the course he is pursuing will lead to only one outcome: Full surveillance and no privacy. Transparency is a choice where people make the conscious decision to reveal details about themselves and about their activities. We, not Google or the Government, weigh our options and decide to reveal the details. When these details are, as Mr. Schmidt himself states, demanded by the Government; then transparency becomes surveillance.
Mr. Schmidt also was very wise in picking the word anonymity. For many people anonymity implies that you have something to hide, that you must be “up to something” or you would not try to hide your activity. “Privacy” is a word that is received more favorably, and that is the reason it was not used. Anonymity and privacy have the same meaning: That you will reveal information about yourself and your activities selectively. It does not imply malicious intent or bad character, and frequently it is the perceived privacy of the internet that encourages many to turn online for help: A partner in an abusive relationship looking for help to leave their abuser; a couple who just had a miscarriage looking for support; a person with an addiction trying to change their life. Without privacy these people might never take the first step towards help.
OR: Pirate Party Comes Online
From the Pirate Party of Oregon via http://thirdpartydaily.blogspot.com/:
We are not the naughty kind of pirate.
We don’t sail the high seas with AK-47s.
We don’t advocate illegal action, in the ocean or online.
We are a political party.
We seek to change the laws.
We seek to promote innovation and transparency.
We seek to promote Internet access and protect its neutrality.
We seek to finally see a paperless office.
We seek to see wars avoided due to wireless connections.
We want to see oppressive regimes circumvented by the virtual community.
We want to see open source accepted and supported.
We want to see creativity take root and ideas flourish.
We want to see our potential realized in this information age.
US Pirate Party Stance on Wikileaks posted at pirate-party.us:
Posted by Renee Schroeder in National
Wikileaks And the US Pirate Party
There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about Wikileaks, first over the release of the video they called “Collateral Damage” in April, then with the arrest of PFC Manning, and most recently and importantly, with the release of thousands of diplomatic messages.
The release has sparked many heated debates and accusations, and lots of airtime and column-inches going backwards and forwards. What is the US Pirate Party’s position on this? As a political party, we are bound by regulation to obey the law, which means we can’t support or condone any actions that break the law. Did PFC Manning’s actions break the law? Possibly, although we stand by “innocent until proven guilty”. We can’t support his actions, if he is found to have broken the law. Did the activities of Wikileaks break the law? The fact that as Mr. Assange was neither in the United States or a United States territory during the time of the leak complicates the issue of jurisdiction and the application of US law. However, the laws passed to deal with the so-called threat of terrorism, plus the alleged association between PFC Manning and Wikileaks mean that there could well be a case, and that the actions of Wikileaks are illegal.
The one issue that has strenuously been avoided is ‘why’. Why, in a supposed democracy, are sites like Wikileaks able to exist? If our government is open and accountable, there should be no need for any leaks. In other words, such sites would have no purpose if the government were already providing us with this information. The damage has come, not from the data itself, but because it had to be leaked because it was being hidden. The Pirate Party applauds and stands strongly behind the intent and goals of Wikileaks in this respect–that transparency and accountability are central to any form of democracy. We cannot, however, support the actions of PFC Manning – we are not allowed to, regardless of our wishes.
There will always be people willing to leak confidential information for vengence, for personal gain, or because it’s the right thing to do. The US Government even recognizes that, and that it can be of enormous public good. This is why the WhistleBlower Protection Act was passed in 1989 – to protect government workers that report agency misconduct. Many states have similar laws. The act of whistleblowing is not bad or evil, but is a natural part of civilization, and a fundimental part of basic human decency.
The US Government’s reaction to the leak is also not an area we can support or condone. President Obama had promised a more open and transparent government, and there have been baby-steps toward this goal. Had this been pursued with more vigor, the situation may never have happened. Despite these small steps, however, President Obama has taken up the lamentable task of overseeing the most prosecutions of whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. Rather than prosecuted, these brave men and women should be defended.
A concern often mentioned is the possibility that people may have been endangered by the leaks. Any information that endangers the lives of others is of great concern to the USPP. At the same time, if we remain unaware of information that brings to light issues that can have a negative impact on our entire nation, we cannot act on said issues. This, we feel, is a greater danger to all citizens. We see the duality of the situation and deplore any negative effects that the release of the Wikileaks information may have had while also praising the intent to be transparent with the information leak and giving it to mainstream media outlets.
The problem is that the laws on these subjects are not clear. In the last ten years, dozens of laws, often running hundreds of pages each, have been passed, and often with little cursory examination. Famously, the USA Patriot Act was introduced on a Tuesday (October 23 2001), passed the House the next day, the Senate the day after, and was signed into law by the President on Friday. With that lack of interest in the contents, the content of laws can often be ignored, let alone their interactions.
Finally, for people like Marc Thiessen, we have nothing but the utmost condemnation. His August 3, 2010 op-ed in the Washington Post (http:// www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/ 2010/08/02/ AR2010080202627.html) underscored extensively why the reputation of the United States sometimes suffers. In the aforementioned opinion piece, Thiessen appears to suggest kidnapping – not just any kidnapping, but kidnapping from a sovereign nation (aka an act of war). He also seems to call for the US to interfere in the actions of a democractically elected government of a foreign allied power. It would also appear he threatens violence unless certain political changes were made, which is the definition of terrorism. When you couple that to his job history – speech writer to the Secretary of Defense from 2001-2004, and then to President Bush from 2004-2009, you can understand that, far from championing a solution to the problem that engenders leaks, Mr. Thiessen seems to be an advocate of such flawed methods.