Day: March 12, 2007

Privacy: The Newest Battle Cry of Republicans Seeking to Revoke the Constitution

Trish

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, abortion foes like to remind us. To them, it’s a constitutional stretch to say that a woman has the right to make up her mind about her body, all by herself, without government assistance.

But there will be more privacy than you can shake a very big stick at in Florida if a state lawmaker gets his way. Personnel records of public workers, such as teachers and elections officials, as well as arrest records, civil suits, and just about everything else formerly “public” will forever more be “private.”

In an extreme case, a newspaper could be prevented from printing the name of a killer unless the killer gave permission for the personal information to be disclosed.

The bill requires that personal identification information should always remain private, even when collected legally.

It would give people the option of choosing whether to have personal identification information released to the public when requested by a state agency to supply such information.

Personal identification information is defined as a person’s name and any information that may be used to identify an individual, including an address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth or mother’s maiden name.

The bill is one of the three labeled most egregious by the First Amendment Foundation, a Florida open-government advocacy group made up of newspaper reporters, broadcasters, and other members of the press. The same state representative, William Proctor (R-St. Augustine), made the list twice.

His second (HB 1211) would make it a misdemeanor to distribute personal identification information about someone without first receiving permission from that person, even if the distributors legally acquired the information from public records.

The framers of the Constitution, as we all know but apparently need to be reminded, wanted us to be able to keep a very close eye on the courts, since they alone have the power to deprive us of our liberty. Without knowing who’s been arrested or tried for what by whom, we can’t possibly exercise the oversight a free society requires.

“It would just close the door to a whole host of records that we use regularly to oversee our government,” said Adria Harper, the director of the Florida’s First Amendment Foundation.

In an extreme case, Harper said, a newspaper could be prevented from printing the name of a killer unless the killer gave permission for the personal information to be disclosed.

These same Republicans want us to know the addresses, license numbers, and blood types of sex offenders. How these two initiatives will coexist is an interesting question. Proctor’s explanation of what he is trying to accomplish is, at best, lame.

“The basic question is to what level of privacy is a person entitled,” Proctor said. “There is the problem of identity theft. That’s not a small problem.”

It is and it isn’t. Identity theft, like online child pornography, is being pumped up and used as a rallying cry to either unconstitutionally hide us or unconstitutionally snoop on us. Either way, it’s bad law.

Unpatriotic: Halliburton Is Moving Its Corporate HQ to Dubai

Jon Ponder

Un-American: Remember when conservatives went ballistic after it was revealed that the Bush Administration planned to hand over management of major U.S. ports to a company based in Dubai? The Republican base was outraged because the government of Dubai, which was a part owner in the ports-management firm, gave money to terrorists groups. You have to wonder why these same people are silent in the wake of news that Halliburton, Cheney’s old company (from which he still gets a monthly check), is moving is headquarters to Dubai:

Reincorporating in Dubai would mean that Halliburton will be paying less taxes to the U.S. Treasury, even as it collects billions from government contracts.

Halliburton, the oil services company once run by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, on Sunday provided further evidence that the focus of many big US companies is shifting overseas by announcing plans to move its chief executive to Dubai.

Dave Lesar, Halliburton’s chairman and chief executive, said his decision to relocate reflected the faster growth in oil exploration and production in the eastern hemisphere.

Where is the outrage over the fact that as a corporate citizen of Dubai, taxes paid by Halliburton — the majority of which will be derived from the billions it receives from its U.S. government contracts — will also presumably be given to these same terrorist groups?

And there is the question of motive. Of course, moving the headquarters closer to the action makes sense, but maybe Halliburton has other reasons for leaving the United States:

Is this about tax breaks? Getting beyond the reach of congressional subpoenas? And what about all that sensitive information that Halliburton has had access to? At a minimum, reincorporating in Dubai would mean that Halliburton will be paying less taxes to the U.S. Treasury, even as it collects billions from government contracts.

The right likes to question the patriotism of people who question the president’s motives for taking the country to war in Iraq. But I can’t imagine a better example of unpatriotic than this huge company that has made billions for investors from taxpayer dollars moving its headquarters overseas.

Rep. Henry Waxman has an announced an investigation and hearings. Here’s a question: what did Cheney know about the move, and when did he know it?