A BAD LOSS

FROM TODAY's CNET:


Internet privacy loses a voice in D.C.
By Declan McCullagh
August 26, 2002, 4:00 AM PT


WASHINGTON--Georgia Rep. Bob Barr is an irascible conservative, an unyielding foe of abortion, gay marriage, and any drug more potent than nicotine. A floor manager during Bill Clinton's impeachment, Barr had lobbied for the president's ouster long before anyone knew of an intern's unfortunate affections inside the Oval Office.
Yet even Naderites should recognize that Barr's defeat in Georgia's Republican primary last week removes the fiercest champion of privacy in the U.S. House of Representatives, and his electoral loss will be a gain for the surveillance state.

As a member of the influential House Judiciary Committee, which oversees criminal laws, Barr has been in a unique position to advance privacy-friendly proposals while thwarting his opponents' more heinous schemes. Barr tried to limit government snooping on Americans' bank accounts (it failed, in a 129-299 vote), successfully campaigned for more oversight of the FBI's Carnivore monitoring system, and opposed a plan to let police obtain customer records from Internet providers and telephone companies without search warrants.



In 1999, Barr, a former CIA analyst, pressed for hearings to investigate the extent of the National Security Agency's shadowy Echelon surveillance network. "If Congress doesn't exercise regular as well as periodic oversight, then agencies are going to get away with as much as they can," he told me at the time.

Now all that has changed. A redistricting created by the Democrat-controlled state legislature threw Barr in a race against another conservative Republican, Rep. John Linder, in the north Atlanta suburbs. By using Barr's prominence in the Clinton impeachment against him, Linder won last week by a two-to-one margin. (An embarrassing incident when Barr, a board member of the National Rifle Association, was handling a supporter's antique pistol and it accidentally discharged sure didn't hurt Linder's chances either.)

Barr says he's not giving up the privacy fight.
Barr says he's not giving up the privacy fight. "It's an issue that has been very close to my heart during the entire time that I've been in the Congress," Barr said last Friday. "A lot of it stems from the fact that I've been a prosecutor and I've been at the CIA and I know from prior public service just how powerful government is. It's given me a very healthy skepticism of giving government more and more power."

The political Barr
Barr is an unusual political phenomenon: An unapologetic Republican--boasting a 100 percent voting rating from the Christian Coalition and a zero percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters--who frequently allies with left-leaning groups on privacy topics. The American Civil Liberties Union applauds his approach to privacy, and even the liberal diehards at People for the American Way say they agree with Barr on the invasive nature of "legislation proposed and passed since September 11."

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Barr entered the spotlight as the Judiciary committee wrestled with President Bush's USA Patriot Act. Barr initially denounced the bill as handing police too much surveillance powers, and then ended up embracing it. "We were able to eliminate or severely limit the most egregious violations of Americans' civil liberties that were contained in the original proposal," Barr said after the vote. (Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, another pro-privacy politico, opposed the final bill.)

"Barr made it respectable to question the giveaway of powers to government in the civil liberties area in a very, very difficult time in America's history. And that's certainly worth a lot," says Fred Smith, who runs the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Even though he didn't totally succeed, he was one of the voices raised. He did this from a southern state and from a conservative perspective, and that was very useful."

Libertarians may applaud Barr's suspicion of government eavesdropping, his support of low taxes, and his vigorous defense of Second Amendment rights. But that's about it.

Privacy vs. the drug war
Barr's opposition even to medical marijuana legalization prompted the Libertarian Party to run an ad campaign in the primary election. It featured a disturbing video of a multiple sclerosis patient saying Barr wanted to put her in prison.

Oddly enough, Barr seems to see no disconnect in his two cherished beliefs, even though the drug war is the most obvious reason for the erosion of privacy. Government officials have repeatedly warned of "drug smugglers" and "money launderers" while asking for encryption export controls, increased wiretap powers, and the authority to conduct infrared scans of homes without search warrants. The FBI claims its controversial Carnivore system is a big help in narcotics investigations. "The Fourth Amendment has been virtually repealed by court decisions, most of which involve drug searches," Steven Duke, a professor of law at Yale University, said last year.

Barr's pursuit of Clinton became another lightning rod for criticism. Even after Clinton left office, Barr wouldn't drop his pursuit of the ex-president. He filed a $30 million lawsuit against Clinton, Democratic guru James Carville and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, alleging emotional distress arising from the impeachment proceeding.

"Very, very few members of Congress have the combination of a background in these issues, an interest in them, and a backbone to take on the status quo."
--Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.
In June, Barr spoke at an event organized by the Objectivist Center, a group dedicated to the individualist principles that author Ayn Rand described in her novels. "As the sphere of privacy shrinks ever smaller, the sphere of government power necessarily grows larger," Barr said at the time.

"My evaluation is that he clearly was a Republican who took privacy issues seriously and who had thought deeply about them," said Ed Hudgins, who runs the center's Washington, D.C., office. "The particular reason why he asked to speak at our opening reception for the Objectivist Center was that he saw Ayn Rand as one of the few people who deeply understood the idea of privacy."

Hudgins says that, as an objectivist himself, he doesn't agree with Barr's hearty endorsement of the war on (some) drugs. "Obviously, we had differences with him, but we were happy to say that on this issue he understood at a profound level the importance of privacy at a free society," Hudgins said.

Earlier this year, Barr drafted a bill that would require federal agencies to consider the impact of proposed regulations on individual privacy. Earlier in his career, he criticized an Internet-monitoring plan invented by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and asked the Internet Engineering Task Force not to craft technology to aid government surveillance.

Next steps
Barr said he plans to remain active in the fight to preserve privacy rights. When I asked Barr if that meant starting a nonprofit organization, joining an existing one, or going to work at a law firm, he said he was contemplating all three choices.

"There's a real need out there for a substantive approach to privacy. Very, very few members of Congress have the combination of a background in these issues, an interest in them, and a backbone to take on the status quo," Barr said. "There's a void, and if I can help in some small way, I'll do it."

 

wow havnt seen you in awhile hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii=)

 

Hello, Sir Blaze!!!!

John

 

omg i read threw the post errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr where are the heros when you need one i keep seeing this stuff and its breaking my heart i know how to stop it i know what to do but i guess im like most americans to lazy.

=(its sad that poor man fighting what seems to be a hopeless battle.

i know the bush family and i know all about there shadey dealings.

these guys are pure pond scum along with over 70 percent of the senet have become currupt

the bush family have stock in gas and slush funds in military companys.

the bush family postion them selfs in postions of power and purposely start wars with oil countrys driveing up gas prices to raise there stocks makeing mass money.

they also do it to gain power in other countrys and take over oil operations by seizing them and you wonder why hesam was blowing them up and purposely burning them to make them useless lol so it would be worthless.

unfortunitly this just brought the gas prices up lining even more coin in the bush pockets and any one else on that ticket.

not to mention more money in the military the bush family shoud relly be investigated bank records as well as over seas accounts in swiss japan and mainland china as will as military slush funds.

is it no wonder when clintion was around the econmy was good now jr bush does what his dady did last time start a war more military funding oil countrys and now hes looking to make more money by trying to pick a fight with huesain ?

i wont even metion how he won the presedent seat due to a uncle in a certain state that fixed the votes and would not allow a recount the only state that would not allow a recount.

the bush family is part of something more sinister then the albolve i mentioned lets just say sep 11 as well as a few other things are all related.

 

You know, it disgusts me to be a Georgian after the racists in Atlanta gerrymandered the congressional districts here on racial lines like that. Will of the people be damned, you are the wrong color, so we're going to remove your district.
;(

 

It's just really sad. We lost one of the best friends in America of Internet privacy. His "Freedom IS privacy and Privacy IS Freedom" speech (I think that's what he called it) had a deep impact on me. As one who works daily in the realm of Internet/Computer privacy, I am deeply saddened by the loss to the country of this man who saw privacy as not some "left-wing conspiracy" but as , in fact, the very essense of freedom itself - the right to be left alone.
I agree with Mike Healan by the way, the loss of his seat was all about politically correct racial politics. The freedom of the Internet has lost a HUGE voice in the congress in America. It comes at a time when voices like his are needed in other countries as they are finding their rights coming under attack with forced ISP logging of emails, etc. But, we go on -- and we fight back with the tools and the BRAINS we have. Oppression never wins in the end.

John
Luv2BSecure

 

It is more then saddening, and spreading rapid as a most dangerous virus.
In our country employers are not even allowed (officially) to scan or block emails from their employees (for infections and images for isntance), maybe they can do something with settings and now the ISPs would be forced to scan all that? And to keep every data for two years?
This is not just copycatting internationally this needs internationally very strong alerts and back to rights on freedom of everything. would think governments should have more important worries at the moment then pieces of data from people's emails.
A snailmail letter has more rights of privacy, so what are we heading to? Our phones are tapped since ages, they have lots of other ways to control our thinking, is it strange more people choose for alternatives if they see their chance?
It's the same with a knife: you can cut your food with them, but for fear people could cut other things forbid them altogether? What for stupid secret code they think to find in personal emails to our relations, and why would that be more then in snail mails?
Constitutions, people who take other people serious, and like you wrote so nice above John, the right to be left (alone), would that all of a sudden be worthless, our cultural gains and agreements?
Even if i have to buy a bigger computer to install all the kinds of security and encryption software and secret hard disc space (and probably external storage) --- i'll dig even more serious through the forums here and try out more then before. Not that i have anything to hide but in the hands of the zombie minds all can be used against you, even your online garden encyclopedia or dictionary.

 

Buh-Bye Bob, So Long Cynthia
No amount of shouting could've saved Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr.


"With so few congressional seats in play due to incumbent-protection gerrymanders in many states, the few newcomers elected this fall are unlikely to fill their rabble-rousing shoes. That may make for a more sober Congress, but also a less entertaining and lively one."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/



Medical marijuana ads play role in defeat of U.S. Rep. Bob Barr
The “worst Drug Warrior in Congress” has lost his seat -- and the Libertarian Party appears to have played a small role in making it happen.
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0210/barr.html
To view the ads, visit: www.randforcongress.com.

 

Having read many of Luv2BSecure's posts over the lasy year or so and those of others like him who question America at every step, I have to say I was surprised at his post about Bob Barr. I agree Barr was strong on internet privacy and privacy in general. Maybe that is why John posted it, but he had to disagree with everything else Barr stood for.

Bob Barr was a conservative Republican. John is obviously a socialist. What gives with that? Maybe John can be big enough to see that Barr was an ardent defender of privacy rights and he forgave him for his other conservative views in appreciation for his views on privacy. I can give him that much. John is a radical when it comes to internet privacy, so was Bob Barr. I'm sure John also hated to see McKinney go down. I must admit that i hated to see Barrs defeat. But John hating it too? Could it be that Luv2Be actually put principle ahead of politics? I am not a not a one-worlder like John and others here seems to be but I guess I have to applaud John for realizing Congress lost it's biggest voice for internet privacy. Now if he would just quit bashing America and its trying to stop terrorism through use of electronic means if necessary.

God bless the United States of America.

 

I am going to ignore the lurking post that was not very nice. Interet Privacy is something all of us are interested in. Barr was a champion for Internet Privacy. I appreciated that so very much. At every opportunity Bob Barr fought those who would try to do some pretty insidious things in the name of "freedom." No, of course I didn't agree with everything Barr did on other issues, but that's NOT the topic here. This is about the Internet. When it came to protecting the Internet from those that would sneak a peek at everything, Bob Barr was there to stop them - successfully (at least in America). I'll NEVER forget what Bob Barr did for Internet Security and Privacy for users in this country. From that article I posted, it sounds like he will still be a fighter. Right now in many countries things are downright scary in places like The Netherlands where Jooske has so eloquently and with determination described how she plans to fight back! What can we say? Long Live A Free Internet!

John
Luv2BSecure

 

God help it, more like.