Open letter to the eminant new Privacy Officer....

[Alex Szabo]

"Over the summer, the Bush Administration revealed plans to appoint the first-ever U.S. chief privacy officer as part of the proposed Department of Homeland Security. This is significant because our government has generally resisted appointing a privacy officer."

<FACISIOUS ON>Lucky us!<FACISIOUS OFF> Read about it at: http://ibs-cnet.com.com/2010-1071-956583.html.

Especially after a court ruling [within the last week] struck down the administrations attempt to quell proceedings under the guise of &#39;privacy&#39;....

This has gained favor in a lot of circles. And am for one interested in maintaining privacy. However at what cost?

[RIFLEMAN]

Welcome to the site, Alex.

I can tell already that I will be looking forward to your posts. You pose a very important question. I think that balancing privacy with "national security" is a complicated balancing act. My instincts tell me to err on the side of caution by ensuring our privacy. If we let previous terrorist acts or the threat of future ones infringe on our rights guaranteed us by the U.S. Constitution, then the terrorists have already defeated us.

Regards,
RIFLEMAN

[Alex Szabo]

Hello Rifleman,

Thank you for the welcome, appreicate it.

Your observation regarding what is at stake clearly defines the problem space, however; as citizens ponder the issue, from which side will the boundaries be drawn in the implementation or application of current, existing or pending law? And moreover, will it protect & defend the Constitution or simply circumvent it?

The most dangerous transaction I see occurring from (and mind you, we don&#39;t know each other yet; but my view always attempts to use the Constitution as the starting points...) a purely historical perspective comes from a comparative analysis track.

Compare & contrast the amount of impact to society using the touch points of Inception (mid-1700’s); Civil War (mid-1800’s); World War II (mid-1900’s) that we went through and look at its impact and how it affects us to this very day.

1. Starting with the colonization process: Conservative & Liberal thought was being argued in all circles. Our forefathers tended to lean more towards the conservative side and therefore the net result was that a new nation was born out of conservative thinking prevailing.
2. Next comes Lincoln; the predominant driver was Federal vs State rights; we now clearly see the end result being that Federal control prevailed (Ooops, what happened to the Constitution?).
3. With FDR-his big thing was Social Security. Bad stuff overall, but you will have a seemingly majority argue its merits. It fails because citizens are relinquished and capitulate because of the lack of control or choice in the matter (Double Ooops, what happened to the Constitution?).
4. Now comes this ‘Homeland Security’. Naturally, it is easy to implement because it dovetails neatly onto the end of Lincolns & FDR’s approach(es) (Do we have a Constitution anymore?).

It [again] begs the fundamental question: does God or the Government grants inalienable rights? If it’s the first (which I subscribe to), then none of these issues remain as such because if a HS cabinet post were viable, then what happens to the FBI or CIA et.al? if the latter were true (which many citizens will argue in favor or), then the prevailing issue becomes; how will that benefit the citizen; because now the Feds will protect ‘us’ from womb to tomb.

Certainly some interesting prospects we face. I conclude that we do NOT need a HS or anything else like it. Leadership must assume its correct position by instituting correct vision and strategy. Those that are responsible for delivery must be tasked with ensuring it is met (by properly funding it with those components of infrastructure that meets its need to succeed).

If the Constitution remains the litmus test (which I would vehemently argue is or would); what do you think the eminent result set or inevitable outcome of this issue remain?

[RIFLEMAN]

Ahh, at last someone who views the Constitution in the manner that I do! Now I am especially glad to have you aboard. http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smiley-wavin-yel.gif
My instincts tell me that the powers enumerated to the Federal government will continue to be abused (as the long history that you touched upon would indicate) with the Homeland Security Plan. We have already seen the AG operate with seeming impunity regarding the authority of law enforcement.
I also fear that the citizenry (where already many-if not most-have little understanding of the scope of the Constitution) will gladly allow these efforts to continue because they feel it to be the duty of the government to protect them from all possible harm, no matter what the cost or sacrifice.
I too think that inalienable rights are given to us by God, but that it is the duty and obligation to make an individual or collective effort to see that the expression of those rights is not abridged by other individuals, societies or governments. They that fail to do so, while being entitled to certain rights, will not be permitted to enjoy those rights.