Wired News informs us that the U.S. May Get a Privacy Czar.
[former chief privacy officer under Clinton] Swire said in addition to establishing federal privacy oversight, the bill would help “broaden the national debate on privacy so that it’s harder to slip into a surveillance state.”
Mr. Swire, I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the establishment of a federal privacy czar might not prevent us from slipping into a surveillance state.
“This will send a stronger message to Silicon Valley and the private sector that the government holds high individual privacy,” [Rep. Kendrick] Meek said.
Or, alternatively, you could abolish the income tax, social security numbers and all the other tracking and meddling that casts doubt on the government’s commitment to individual privacy.
[Thanks to satirist Richard Taylor for the title of this blog].
{ 1 comment }
From a friend: “One thing that I find amusing/annoying is why everything needs a
“czar”. Who’s bright idea was that? Why not despot or dictator-for-life? I think it started with the drug czar, but I always found it offensive in a democracy, or what claims to be one, that we have bunch of czars for everything under the sun.”
Comments on this entry are closed.