16 ms·

Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

205 points by jedwhite 13y ago

salimmadjd 13y ago
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 is not using the IRS scandal and tie it to the NSA's potential abuse of power. As we know the metadata can be used to see if a person had an abortion, may have sought mental health (calling suicide hotlines, etc.) may have feared STDs (calling aids hotline) may have had cosmetic surgery or slew of other things. Any of these information, can for example, be misused against a political contender running against the current administration. Comparisons to IRS' supposed targeting of certain political entity would have been tangible and palpable example of the unchecked power of NSA and would have been farm more visceral than the heady, "Big Brother" argument.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  "I'm surprised he is not using the IRS scandal and tie it to the NSA's potential abuse of power." Actually, he does mention the IRS scandal: "The president assures us that the government is simply monitoring the origin and length of phone calls, not eavesdropping on their contents. Is this administration seriously asking us to trust the same government that admittedly targets political dissidents through the Internal Revenue Service and journalists through the Justice Department?"
  - salimmadjd 13y ago
    > Actually, he does mention the IRS scandal I saw that. However, it's made in passing and the core of his argument and the title of his article is about "Big Brother". Which sounds heady and usually associated with the conspiracy types.
- kbd 13y ago
  > However, you have to admit they're beginning to sound like profits.[sic] Here's a video I came across the other day of Ron Paul in 1984: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWmKpBeEz0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWmKpBeEz0
  - dnautics 13y ago
    little observed fact - he's criticizing Ronald Reagan directly.
- dnautics 13y ago
  Actually I liked this: "We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked." The traditional narrative that youngsters in the US are taught is that the revolution was fought over taxes, but if you closely read the declaration of independence, that's not really the bulk of the argument. Historically speaking, it was violations of personal freedoms and the "home is a man's castle" principles that rankled the colonists the most.
  - wavesounds 13y ago
    this is one of the reason why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making us less safe. We barge into peoples houses and search through their stuff all the time. People seem to forget how important Respect is to people, people will fight revolutions for it. We did, the arab spring is doing it, a persons personal space and thoughts and communications are their most sacred human rights.
- rpgmaker 13y ago
  The son doesn't have the spine of the father. I'm noticing that Rand is very sneaky too, why doesn't he just mount his legal challenge against this programs without asking for signatures or anything? Does he care about the principles his espousing or about making some headlines (for example, he could've really filibustered Brennan's nomination following his standing filibuster with a modern one)? Lately it seems to be the latter. Still, this op-eds do inform the general public but I don't think he has the spine or principle to walk the talk.
- ignostic 13y ago
  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.
  - eru 13y ago
    Paleo-liberal, then?
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  My position all through the last Republican primaries was "yes, I realize many of Ron's policies (e.g. gold standard) are down-right dangerous. But those policies could never be passed in any case so we should vote on the things he can change like no new wars, etc.". I don't know that I got downvoted every time but I was always shot down with more "hope and change".
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
"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 the reasons we libertarians have had such a hard time over the years talking about the security state we're building is that Paul is right: this is absurd. People simply do not believe that such a thing is actually happening. Sure, they think, some bad guys are being monitored, and the usual crackpots are complaining, but overall the government is doing a good job. After all, there hasn't been another 9-11, right? I appreciate Paul's efforts, but we're going to need massive reform in the surveillance policies of the U.S. As a start we need something like another Church Committee. One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution.
- mikegagnon 13y ago
  > One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution. The obligation to whistle blow is usually an explicit part of "honor codes," such as "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." The US military uses this honor code in various contexts, see for example US Navy's Bootcamp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp and Officer Candidate Guide, US Army National Guard http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf In practice however, I believe authority usually interprets these honor codes as "snitch on your compatriots when they compromise authority", not "snitch on authority when they compromise your compatriots."
  - RexRollman 13y ago
    We tell people that "I was just following orders" is no excuse for committing a crime but when someone stands up and brings attention to the fact that the government itself is violating the law, they are a traitor. It's sickening.
- 13y ago
u2328 13y ago
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.
- DamnYuppie 13y ago
  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.
  - cpeterso 13y ago
    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"?
    - DamnYuppie 13y ago
      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%.
      - habitue 13y ago
        > ...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.
        13y ago
tptacek 13y ago
"... If someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison." http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/?mobile=nc http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-pau...
- revscat 13y ago
  To be fair (and I am by no means a Rand Paul fan) this argument it tu quoque. Yes, the quote you have given suggests hypocrisy. The core argument of NSA/CIA overreach is still a sound one, though.
- mcnees287 13y ago
  Do you support the violent overthrow of the government? Many people would die.
  - zecho 13y ago
    Since when is listening to one's positions, however awful they may be, indicative of support?
    - ericd 13y ago
      Also, we're pretty protective of our right to espouse even very unpopular and radical beliefs...
michaelwww 13y ago
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.
- zecho 13y ago
  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 focus on their policies.
  - michaelwww 13y ago
    I'm guessing HN is over-whelmingly younger males, so reproductive rights are not a big issue. Someday some of them will have a daughter and they'll have a chance to rethink the issue.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      I have a daughter. That still doesn't make me willing to throw out a candidate for his/her potential to stop or slow a problem we are actually having because they hold a position that could never actually be applied in any case. Pretty much all politicians are awful right now so if you're not going to run yourself you're going to have to make compromises in who you vote for. Please make practical ones.
      - michaelwww 13y ago
        I never said I wouldn't vote for him. I said I find his views on reproductive rights unfortunate and inconsistent with his libertarian values. I'd hope his views on this issue would evolve the way Obama evolved on gay marriage. I'm more curious than anything. Do his libertarian values only apply to men? Or is he taking a hard line on abortion to get elected in Kentucky? Time will tell, but in the meantime I applaud his efforts to challenge the administration on drones and privacy.
mtgx 13y ago
Why is the focus only on the phone records? Getting all the online data seems a lot bigger to me.
Quequau 13y ago
Getting excited about Rand Paul speaking out about this is exactly like getting excited by candidate Obama talking about how he was going end the wars, close Gitmo, and stop torture.
- nathan_long 13y ago
  It is a good point that we should focus on track record, not speech. But: 1) don't we have more track record on Paul regarding this issue than we did on Obama? 2) isn't it possible that having a senator express this opinion publicly could influence other elected officials?
  - Quequau 13y ago
    I at least, have read/seen much more about Rand Paul and the polices he promotes than I had about Obama as he took office for the first time. Reading his statements regarding his commitment to the Republican party & its goals as well as the right-wing "Libertarian" principles he habitually talks about and then comparing that to the analysis of the actual text of his proposals; it's obvious that he is simply using these "Libertarian" talking points as blunt weapons against the Democrats. Many of Rand Paul's proposals don't actually do or change anything at all, instead they are designed only to make the news cycle and then to disappear. Many lack many of the details actual legislation is required to have or because they are designed such that a voting majority is impossible to develop. It's clear that they were never intended to go further than a news cycle... and they don't. Besides often being couched in language Democrats are unlikely to ever accept, they're also consistent with the proposals from other Hard-Right Republican's who don't associate themselves with the right-libertarian political movement at all. So it's not like he's making non-partisan basic pro-freedom proposals, which the Democrats (being the anti-freedom party) reject. He's only making proposals about issues which can be expressed in the hyper-partisan language and which support the hyper-partisan strategy that is currently dominating D.C. politics. Moreover, he's studiously avoided good-faith, non-partisan, basic policy reform proposals which could get through the legislation process. Assuming that Rand Paul continues to be successful with this gambit, the obvious influence it will have on other elected officials is that this sort of deceptive and manipulative strategy is politically effective and that they should be doing it too.

205 points by jedwhite 13y ago

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 is not using the IRS scandal and tie it to the NSA's potential abuse of power. As we know the metadata can be used to see if a person had an abortion, may have sought mental health (calling suicide hotlines, etc.) may have feared STDs (calling aids hotline) may have had cosmetic surgery or slew of other things. Any of these information, can for example, be misused against a political contender running against the current administration. Comparisons to IRS' supposed targeting of certain political entity would have been tangible and palpable example of the unchecked power of NSA and would have been farm more visceral than the heady, "Big Brother" argument.

greenyoda 13y ago
"I'm surprised he is not using the IRS scandal and tie it to the NSA's potential abuse of power." Actually, he does mention the IRS scandal: "The president assures us that the government is simply monitoring the origin and length of phone calls, not eavesdropping on their contents. Is this administration seriously asking us to trust the same government that admittedly targets political dissidents through the Internal Revenue Service and journalists through the Justice Department?"
- salimmadjd 13y ago
  > Actually, he does mention the IRS scandal I saw that. However, it's made in passing and the core of his argument and the title of his article is about "Big Brother". Which sounds heady and usually associated with the conspiracy types.
kbd 13y ago
> However, you have to admit they're beginning to sound like profits.[sic] Here's a video I came across the other day of Ron Paul in 1984: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWmKpBeEz0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWmKpBeEz0
- dnautics 13y ago
  little observed fact - he's criticizing Ronald Reagan directly.
dnautics 13y ago
Actually I liked this: "We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked." The traditional narrative that youngsters in the US are taught is that the revolution was fought over taxes, but if you closely read the declaration of independence, that's not really the bulk of the argument. Historically speaking, it was violations of personal freedoms and the "home is a man's castle" principles that rankled the colonists the most.
- wavesounds 13y ago
  this is one of the reason why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making us less safe. We barge into peoples houses and search through their stuff all the time. People seem to forget how important Respect is to people, people will fight revolutions for it. We did, the arab spring is doing it, a persons personal space and thoughts and communications are their most sacred human rights.
rpgmaker 13y ago
The son doesn't have the spine of the father. I'm noticing that Rand is very sneaky too, why doesn't he just mount his legal challenge against this programs without asking for signatures or anything? Does he care about the principles his espousing or about making some headlines (for example, he could've really filibustered Brennan's nomination following his standing filibuster with a modern one)? Lately it seems to be the latter. Still, this op-eds do inform the general public but I don't think he has the spine or principle to walk the talk.
ignostic 13y ago
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.
- eru 13y ago
  Paleo-liberal, then?
flyinRyan 13y ago
My position all through the last Republican primaries was "yes, I realize many of Ron's policies (e.g. gold standard) are down-right dangerous. But those policies could never be passed in any case so we should vote on the things he can change like no new wars, etc.". I don't know that I got downvoted every time but I was always shot down with more "hope and change".

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

"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 the reasons we libertarians have had such a hard time over the years talking about the security state we're building is that Paul is right: this is absurd. People simply do not believe that such a thing is actually happening. Sure, they think, some bad guys are being monitored, and the usual crackpots are complaining, but overall the government is doing a good job. After all, there hasn't been another 9-11, right? I appreciate Paul's efforts, but we're going to need massive reform in the surveillance policies of the U.S. As a start we need something like another Church Committee. One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution.

mikegagnon 13y ago
> One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution. The obligation to whistle blow is usually an explicit part of "honor codes," such as "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." The US military uses this honor code in various contexts, see for example US Navy's Bootcamp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp and Officer Candidate Guide, US Army National Guard http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf In practice however, I believe authority usually interprets these honor codes as "snitch on your compatriots when they compromise authority", not "snitch on authority when they compromise your compatriots."
- RexRollman 13y ago
  We tell people that "I was just following orders" is no excuse for committing a crime but when someone stands up and brings attention to the fact that the government itself is violating the law, they are a traitor. It's sickening.
13y ago

u2328 13y ago

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.

DamnYuppie 13y ago
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.
- cpeterso 13y ago
  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"?
  - DamnYuppie 13y ago
    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%.
    - habitue 13y ago
      > ...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.
      - 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

"... If someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison." http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/?mobile=nc http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-pau...

revscat 13y ago
To be fair (and I am by no means a Rand Paul fan) this argument it tu quoque. Yes, the quote you have given suggests hypocrisy. The core argument of NSA/CIA overreach is still a sound one, though.
mcnees287 13y ago
Do you support the violent overthrow of the government? Many people would die.
- zecho 13y ago
  Since when is listening to one's positions, however awful they may be, indicative of support?
  - ericd 13y ago
    Also, we're pretty protective of our right to espouse even very unpopular and radical beliefs...

michaelwww 13y ago

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.

zecho 13y ago
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 focus on their policies.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  I'm guessing HN is over-whelmingly younger males, so reproductive rights are not a big issue. Someday some of them will have a daughter and they'll have a chance to rethink the issue.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    I have a daughter. That still doesn't make me willing to throw out a candidate for his/her potential to stop or slow a problem we are actually having because they hold a position that could never actually be applied in any case. Pretty much all politicians are awful right now so if you're not going to run yourself you're going to have to make compromises in who you vote for. Please make practical ones.
    - michaelwww 13y ago
      I never said I wouldn't vote for him. I said I find his views on reproductive rights unfortunate and inconsistent with his libertarian values. I'd hope his views on this issue would evolve the way Obama evolved on gay marriage. I'm more curious than anything. Do his libertarian values only apply to men? Or is he taking a hard line on abortion to get elected in Kentucky? Time will tell, but in the meantime I applaud his efforts to challenge the administration on drones and privacy.

mtgx 13y ago

Why is the focus only on the phone records? Getting all the online data seems a lot bigger to me.

Quequau 13y ago

Getting excited about Rand Paul speaking out about this is exactly like getting excited by candidate Obama talking about how he was going end the wars, close Gitmo, and stop torture.

nathan_long 13y ago
It is a good point that we should focus on track record, not speech. But: 1) don't we have more track record on Paul regarding this issue than we did on Obama? 2) isn't it possible that having a senator express this opinion publicly could influence other elected officials?
- Quequau 13y ago
  I at least, have read/seen much more about Rand Paul and the polices he promotes than I had about Obama as he took office for the first time. Reading his statements regarding his commitment to the Republican party & its goals as well as the right-wing "Libertarian" principles he habitually talks about and then comparing that to the analysis of the actual text of his proposals; it's obvious that he is simply using these "Libertarian" talking points as blunt weapons against the Democrats. Many of Rand Paul's proposals don't actually do or change anything at all, instead they are designed only to make the news cycle and then to disappear. Many lack many of the details actual legislation is required to have or because they are designed such that a voting majority is impossible to develop. It's clear that they were never intended to go further than a news cycle... and they don't. Besides often being couched in language Democrats are unlikely to ever accept, they're also consistent with the proposals from other Hard-Right Republican's who don't associate themselves with the right-libertarian political movement at all. So it's not like he's making non-partisan basic pro-freedom proposals, which the Democrats (being the anti-freedom party) reject. He's only making proposals about issues which can be expressed in the hyper-partisan language and which support the hyper-partisan strategy that is currently dominating D.C. politics. Moreover, he's studiously avoided good-faith, non-partisan, basic policy reform proposals which could get through the legislation process. Assuming that Rand Paul continues to be successful with this gambit, the obvious influence it will have on other elected officials is that this sort of deceptive and manipulative strategy is politically effective and that they should be doing it too.