A timely op-ed:
The most common retort against privacy advocates — by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures — is this line: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?”
Some clever answers: “If I’m not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what’s wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these — as right as they are — is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It’s not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? (“Who watches the watchers?”) and “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.” Watch someone long enough, and you’ll find something to arrest — or just blackmail — with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies — whoever they happen to be at the time.
Given today’s disclosure about the theft of records from the Department of Veterans Records, the privacy debate concerning national security efforts, and the widespread installation of surveillance cameras, traffic cameras, concerns about the privacy of phone records, etc., this is a rather timely piece. I am pessimistic today, as should be obvious by now, so I am afraid this battle about privacy has already been fought. The good guys lost, and we are left with former Rep. Bob Barr and a handful of others running rearguard actions.
DougJ
Have to go work for the rest of the day, but I couldn’t agree more.
Here’s something scary: in my spoof persona I always wrote “those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear”, thinking that it would sound so chilling no one would want to agree. When I read the letters to CNN about the NSA wiretapping, about half the letters used that phrase or some variant.
The American people no longer care about the Fourth Amendment. It’s very sad.
Krista
People who say stuff like that don’t realize that people can want privacy just for its own sake. How come the phrase “It’s none of their damned business” is so unacceptable to this bunch?
Pb
Krista,
Privacy is very important to the Bush administration. What they don’t care about, however, is other people’s privacy (or, really, other people in general).
Andrew
I think we should give the Bush administration some credit! Through a heretofore unseen convergence of authoritarianism and incompetence, the new operative phrases are:
“those who have nothing to hide have something to fear”
and
“those who have something to hide have nothing to fear”
Darrell
I wish the debate wouldn’t characterize the opposition as saying “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide”.. as if that’s the argument. We as a society have ALWAYS had to balance tradeoffs between privacy and security.. let’s not pretend that there is some absolutist standard which applies here.
The discussion is about what reasonable tradeoffs make sense. I tend to agree w/John on the traffic camera bit, however, it might make sense to install traffic cameras at intersections where multiple deaths had occurred due to the running of red lights. That sounds like a reasonable tradeoff which should be considered.
Sorting through anonymous phone records with no phone conversations or names attached in the search for terrorists seems to me to be a very minor, reasonable intrusion on privacy. YMMV. In the battle between good guys vs. bad guys, I see the absolutists, who don’t recognize that we have in the past and must in the future make some tradeoffs as an extreme position.
DougJ
That’s my fucking point, Darrell. I said that to make fun of the right and the more I read, the more I heard that argument made seriously.
That is the argument most on your side make. That or “911 changed everything, the scary terrorists will kill us all unless we give up all of our rights”.
How pray tell are they “anonymous”? You can see the phone numbers. They’re no encrypted.
Why am I arguing? Just more pro-Bush boilerplate from Deep Throat Darrell.
Darrell
Well it’s true that 9/11 changed things. It opened our eyes to the measures terrorists were taking to kill us. However, it’s only extremists like yourself who claim the other side’s position is to “give up all our rights”.
Listening in to terrorists’ phone conversations overseas does not = “giving up all rights”. And going through phone records appears to be supported by a 25+ year old Supreme court decision in Smith vs Maryland..
“But Bush is shredding the constitution!”
DougJ
You’re right. It’s just privacy and free speech we should give up. I exaggerated slightly.
Andrew
No, it didn’t, you pea-brained troglodyte. Contrary to Condi’s idiotic claims that no one had envisioned such an attack, people had been predicting such things years. Tom Clancy wrote a plane attack on Congress into a mid-90’s novel.
Seriously, do you hide behind your mommy’s skirt whenever a brown person is nearby?
Darrell
Right wingnuts are always looking at ‘brown’ people as a target for their hatred and fears. [/leftist whackjob]
Keith
I like “You may have nothing to hide, but you do have something to protect.” Or “You have nothing to hide? Bullshit, then let me look through your house.”
Brian
Good op-ed, now I want to read the guy’s book.
He is speaking, of course, about government intrusiveness, but what about intrusiveness from the private or business sectors? Is that any less threatening or tyrannical? Our concepts of privacy seem quaint in the face of our technological advances in the last two decades. If we’re in a public place, like a 6th Ave. in NYC, is it intrusive for cameras to be watching? Same if we’re in a privately- owned mall?
Is the issue really about privacy, or about keeping a balance of power technologically between the “good” guys and the “bad”? Non-governmental entities can effectively use technology against us, so why should we deny our governmental authorities the same technological abilities in our defense?
Edmund Dantes
Because I can make a conscious choice to avoid companies that treat my privacy in a way I disagree with. I don’t get that same privilege when it comes to government. Not to mention the government can force itself on my wishes through the “end of a barrel”, and as bad as Wal-Mart or ExxonMobil are made out to be they don’t have that same ability to force their intrusions of my privacy on me through threat of force.
srv
It’s sad when one has to hope that the theives make the most of the Veterans records. But at best, it would just result in some new worthless bill (with a great name) that just eroded the 4th more.
The creeping authoritarians (primarly from the right) have won.
srv
What Edmund said
Andrei
Seems related to the topic at hand.
AT&T, the Whistle Blower, and government tracking of the internet
The unedited, sealed court docs.
Darrell
Why would you hope that? What kind of person hopes that the Veterans get f*cked over just to score a political point? Is this really where the left has come to?
ppGaz
Proposed:
Darrell:
Uh, I paraphrased Darrell slightly. But not so much as to change his meaning.
Brian
It’s not that easy. What if you have no idea that your privacy is being abused? This can happen in myriad ways, and even if you find out and make a decision to go elsewhere, your privacy’s been breached and information taken. And you’re assuming, of course, that you have a choice, whereas with with utilities you would not have a choice.
Your approach to the subject is naive and simplistic.
Rob
How did this happen? It used to be if you were libertarian you would vote the GOP; I don’t think that is true any more.
Ryan S.
Last friday I got a nice call from the bank telling me that a merchant that I did business with had a “security breach”, and that my debit/atm card has been disable. As inconvenient as this is I’m glad they did it, but they wouldn’t tell me which “merchant” it was. In my case, I can’t even figure out who I need to stop doing business, or what other information they might have had.
Does anyone know a person or place i might ask for an inquiry or is that information… heh private?
Andrew
Sure it is. Libertarians don’t actually exist. They’re just people who don’t want to pay taxes and make up some philosophical hoohah to justify this.
fwiffo
This is exactly why I think Feingold is the best choice in 2008.
Rob
OK libertarian was a bad choice of words. People who value their privacy.
My parents have voted republican forever. I think was originally because they thought the democrats meddled too much in peoples lives. This would be late fifties.
Now they vote republican out of habit. They probably use taxes as their reason, but they don’t make enough for that to make sense.
The problem is, they have voted Republican for so many years that I don’t think they would change for ANY reason.
Edmund Dantes
Ummm… the worst that’s going to happen if Wal-Mart or ExxonMobil invades my privacy (and this is relatively speaking of course) abuses it, or any other myriad things is I will have a shitload of a difficult time regaining my economic footing, etc. Last time I checked Wal-Mart or ExxonMobil isn’t out to put me in jail or execute me by abusing my privacy. Mainly they would be looking to screw me over financially which would suck, but wouldn’t be the ned of the world (again relatively speaking).
Now if the Government does the same thing they have the ability (and have in the past used that ability) to jail, harass, and even execute people through abuse.
So while yes I believe private and business intrusivenes into my privacy is a problem, no I don’t believe it rises to the same level as the government. I’ll tackle government first. Businesses can only get away with what the government allows.
Also a big “well duh!!!” of course I can’t do anything if I don’t know what’s going. Brilliant bit of logic there on your part. I guess since I can’t know what’s going on in every business or private entity I possibly do business with I shouldn’t react or change my habits once I know what one is doing.
I never claimed to have ESP or telepathy. I of course have to rely on the information available to me as an informed consumer which is why I’m such an active supporter of an active and engaged media.
Tim in SF
I wish I hadn’t missed that conversation.
As for traffic lights, I agree that they should be installed where the most accidents (or deaths) have occurred. However, in city after city, they are typically installed in more affluent areas as opposed to dangerous intersections. Let’s take San Diego’s installation of the cameras, which was one of the first areas to adopt the cameras and upon which most of the camera programs are built (and with which I am most familiar). They started with sixteen cameras.
An article from the San Diego Union Tribune ( ticketassassin.com/ut_0796.html ) dealing with the city’s plan to install the original sixteen cameras systems noted the twenty most dangerous intersections in San Diego at the time; these were the intersections with the highest number of accidents. The vast majority of these intersections were located in low-income working class neighborhoods (7 in notorious City Heights alone). If this enforcement effort were at all about safety, one would expect that the cameras would be installed primarily at these identified dangerous intersections, right?
So, given that you have a list of the twenty most dangerous intersections, take a guess: how many of these intersections were covered by the red light cameras? Go ahead, take a guess.
The answer is *two*. Only two of the sixteen automated enforcement installations were done at any of these twenty most dangerous intersections. The remaining fourteen cameras were installed in affluent and middle class neighborhoods: La Jolla, Pacific Beach, Rancho Bernardo, Carmel Mountain Ranch, Mira Mesa. These cameras were installed in areas where drivers who can afford to pay a $300 ticket live and work. To ensure the financial success of the camera program, the City of San Diego and its corporate partners at Lockheed-Martin avoided the low-income, high-accident areas where these machines would have promoted whatever safety they are able, and instead installed them instead in safer but more affluent areas where cited drivers are more likely to be able to pay a $300 fine.
The problem is that our government simply cannot be trusted with this information. They have proven time and time again that they will abuse the trust we place in them. Security is often a tradeoff, but I’m sorry, but I would just assume not trade away the privacy of my telephone activity to get a smidgeon of safety and security.
Even with no security, I am far more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to die at the hands of a terrorist.
Perry Como
Sure we do. We’ve just been marginalized between the gun hating tax and spenders and the nanny state non-tax and spenders.
Faux News
I need to meat with this Darrell. He sounds like my kind of Republican Patriot with whom I can go mano on mano during the next Skull and Bones Circle Jerk.
Jeff Gannon
Faux News
DougJ
I think the word “libertarian” is Latin for “Republican’s bitch.”
Perry Como
Fixed that for you.
Darrell
Good post on the traffic cam screwup in SD, but it seems you’re not aware that one of the most important functions of government is to protect us from enemies abroad and within. And between the DMV, IRS, Social Security admin, voting rolls, and courthouse records, let’s not pretend that they don’t have plenty of info on us already.
You want to talk about specific abuses? please do so. Your San Diego traffic cam example was a good one. But to claim our govt cannot be trusted with any info about us is extreme.
srv
This isn’t a political point. It’s a constitutional point.
Because it’s the only way authoritarian, anti-privacy types like you might be slowed down. For an absolutist, ends-justify-the-means type, you seem to not understand how the world works. Until alot of people get f*cked, bad, the 4th will just continue the path to becoming as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.
Sorry if it’s a pet constiuency you pretend to support. But I have 8 relatives who were probably on that disk.
Tim in SF
I’m not unaware of our government’s mandate. It’s in the preamble to the constitution (the one I learned from School House Rocks back in the 70’s—remember that?).
My point is that these institutions are run by people, and people are susceptible to corruption. We’ve seen ample demonstration of this corruption time and time again. If we simply reduce the power these institutions have over us, and if we provide greater oversight (at least *some* oversight), it is that much more difficult to get to that fictional, future totalitarian state many of us fear.
My guiding principle is to imagine all this power in the hands of the most wickedly corrupt people on the face of the Earth, and to work backwards from there. For example: I would guess you don’t like Hillary Clinton. Regardless of it’s likelihood, how would you feel about the administration of President Hillary Clinton having unfettered, unrestricted and unreviewed access to all of the information gathered on you by all the different governmental institutions and agencies? How about if you add phone records to that list? It gives me the willies.
Darrell
Well, she did have those ill-gotten FBI files on their enemies.. Did you demand criminal action against the Clintons over that trashing of privacy rights? No?
Look, the NSA and FBI are not new. I see a lot of bureaucracy sprouting up, but I don’t see a lot of overreaches on the privacy front. Not hanging up when a suspected foreign terrorist overseas who is being monitored gets a phone call from Atlanta? That’s supposed to signify some horrific shredding of privacy rights? Please
And what specific programs involving “unfettered, unrestricted, and unreviewed” access to information are you referring to? Or does it make you feel like you’re speaking truth to power to make accusations in those terms?
And do you have an example of how current oversight processes and procedures on secret programs have been reduced or eliminated?
Angry Engineer
Sure they do – there are at least seven people in this country that still believe in the 2nd and 4th amendments. Throw in the 9th amendment to cover “the right to privacy” and we might narrow that down to four or five.
Tim in SF
Nope. I was a little young for politics back then. If it happened today, I might be bothered by it. However, I don’t know the story.
I think the new, overarching DHS, which oversees the NSA and FBI and CIA and DIA and a bunch of other people with guns, certainly is new. As are many of their new powers.
Well, strictly speaking, I haven’t seen them either. I’ve never been in the secret room inside the AT&T switch building a few blocks from where I am sitting right now. I haven’t seen a list I’m on. I haven’t seen anyone listening to my phone. But I have read the paper and what I’ve been reading sounds very much like a power grab by the government. It all makes me very nervous and scared of my government. And that makes me angry.
I live in ultra-liberal San Francisco and I have never met a single person who would have a problem using electronic surveillance on suspected terrorists. Not a single one. This is a straw man argument.
I’m not referring to anything specific. I’m asking you to use your imagination. Go back and read what I wrote.
I haven’t been reading B/J for very long. Are you always this rude? I thought we were having a conversation and you are trying to analyze my feelings? WTF?
That’s an extremely narrow question and it’s also not very interesting. I’d rather discuss “The Value of Privacy” as originally brought up by John Cole.
Darrell
I’ve read allegations.. Are they substantiated?
And I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree that a program involving the analysis of phone calls with no conversations or names associated with those numbers can be reasonably described as a ‘power grab’, especially since they’ll need to convince a judge for a warrant to pursue it further. Supreme court case Smith vs. Maryland, 1979, as I understand it, permitted the govt access to those phone records over 25 years ago, so again, nothing new that I can see..
ppGaz
Darrell’s contribution to the debate over your privacy:
There you have it, fine citizen Darrell is looking out for your rights and your liberties. The world’s most tedious dumbfuck doesn’t see any problem. What are y’all worried about?
Perry Como
Don’t forget the 3rd Amendment!
cf
Maybe we must confront the reality that privacy from data mining is gone forever. We are not going to get the genie back in the bottle, I fear. Data mining is too valuable to flatly disallow it. Those who say “no data mining” are looking more and more like Luddites, destroying industrial equipment during the industrial revolution.
It seems to me we should focus our energy on avoiding assymetry – making sure the “little guy” (or his laywers and advisors) have equal or better access to the data mines with the big telcos, grocery sellers, walmarts, googles, NSA, FBI, CIA, DOD, etc.
Steve
Heh, there was a fullblown investigation of “Filegate” by an Indepedent Counsel, which found no credible evidence of criminal activity. Not that you’d ever see an investigation of comparable allegations against the present administration, mind you. And not that it stops Darrell from bringing it up ten years after the fact.
Slide.
Does anyone find it ironic that the same morons that think that the government having the possession of every citizens phone records is just
are the same one’s that defend our not knowing who our Vice President met with to create our energy policy. This is the most secretive administration in history. I guess they value THEIR privacy pretty highly. Oh, of course they always couch their arguments in terms of national security but we all know better by now, don’t we? Yeah, I think most Americans get the picture now. The Darrells of the world are dwindling by the hour. Fewer and fewer trust this administration. Fewer believe they tell the truth. Fewer have any confidence in their competence.
Abe Lincoln said it best,
Of course Honest Abe never met Darrell.
Darrell
What!? You mean no proof that the Clinton’s didn’t steal them.. that they just ‘happened to find’ those missing files as they claimed?
I think the Clintons’ explanation sounds very plausible and honest, don’t you?
Brian
Well, a source of finding the media is increasingly the search engines. I think I have as much to fear from Google as I do the government, and this only confirms it for me. Until this company gets more transparent in the running of its business, I’ll continue to be very suspicious of how it affects its users, measured in the hundreds of millions.
You can’t appreciate an active and engaged media if you can’t find it. You can’t rely on Keith Olbermann on mess-nbc forever.
DougJ
Brian and Darrell — get a room. I know Darrell is dying to see “the monster”.
Steve
Yeah, just because the Independent Counsel’s investigation turned up no credible evidence of criminal activity, that doesn’t mean anything, right? It’s the Clintons, they must be guilty of something.
A cite, please, to where the Clintons claimed they just “happened to find” the FBI files. That’s the phrase you put in quotes, so I’m sure you can document that that was their explanation.
Perry Como
Umm, free market. Google has no requirement to carry conservative blogs or news sites if they decide not to. Transparency in their business means less accurate results. They will pull sites that are gaming their algorithms.
If it’s a bad business choice in your opinion, vote with your feet. Use MSN or some other search service. Once you and the rest of the wingutty blogosphere boycotts[0] Google, their share prices will drop and they will be destroyed thanks to the Values Voters(TM). Perhaps Bill O’Reilly should lead the charge.
[0] – bwahahahahahahahahahahaha
t. jasper parnell
Quickly scanning the posts, this is an odd post. What constitutes an enemy “within”? Lets assume a worst case situation, an American government decides that those whokeep and bear arms, irrespective of the exitence of or membership in a miltia, constitute “enemies within.” Are they then allowed to search hither and yon by means fair an foul to root out this enemy? Principle are principles for a reason. Neither the state nor the government is authorized by the Constitution, natural right, or right reason to violate any rights or freedoms, enumerated or otherwise, in the pursuit of protection of individuals from presumptive enemies. Nitwit.
tBone
Don’t listen to him, Darrell. There are easier ways to earn a merit badge.
Perry Como
I wonder how long until a “conservative” calls for the regulation of Google?
Maybe some enterprising conservative can make a better search engine. Perhaps Ben Domenech? He’s used to making money off of other people’s words.
Steve
I’m fairly confident Darrell will oppose the proposed boycott of Google.
cf
Darrell:
“And I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree that a program involving the analysis of phone calls with no conversations or names associated with those numbers can be reasonably described as a ‘power grab’, especially since they’ll need to convince a judge for a warrant to pursue it further.”
What we are talking about, I gather, is being able to print out (without a warrant) a map showing all people called, over the last 5 years, by, for example, the three alleged assailants, plus the assorted other defense witnesses in the Duke “rape” case. Then DA Nifong prints out all the web sites visted by each of them (ranked by frequesncy of visit). Still see no privacy or assymetrical power issues?
Even with “nothing (much) to hide,” middle class Americans could end up crippled in any “arm wrestling” with those (private or public) entities with access to the relevant data mines.
ppGaz
We can’t expect Darrell to keep track of which righty nutcase website he gets this crap from.
And DougJ, you really need to upgrade the Brian material. He’s starting to sound like my mother.
ppGaz
There probably is, but Darrell just can’t put his finger on it.
Tim in SF
What kind of game are you playing here? The Justice Department was thwarted investigating the NSA’s domestic spying program because the NSA wouldn’t provide security clearance to investigate. Today, it’s the FCC, and they’re crying “uncle” before even attempting an investigation.
In relevant part:
Is the reason you are asking for “substantiation” (an evidence threshold you did not apply to the “Filegate” allegations against the Clintons you brought up) because you know that no government investigatory body is allowed to do its job regarding this scandal? Thus, you will be able to dismiss with a wave of your hand any stories or leaks or reporting because it has not been entered into evidence in an investigation? Is that your game?
It seems you are applying a double standard. I’d like to see you apply the skepticism you seem to have regarding the Clintons, to the current administration and the departments under which they have control, like the NSA, particularly in regards to this scandal.
Knowing who you call is bad enough. As Jon Stewart said, “Yes, the government may know you called the 976-gay-teen-bondage-line four times a week for six minutes each call, but whatever it is you talked about, well, that’s between you and the 976-gay-teen-bondage-line .”
ppGaz
Or, to Darrell, that’s Speed Dial 3.
Richard 23
Tim in SF:
Yes. Welcome to Balloon Juice!
DougJ
I bet you’re sorry you set up with the wireless network now, aren’t you?
DougJ
Tim in SF: Darrell is a mentally disabled 12 year-old — the of us are here working with him as part of our court-mandated community service.
ppGaz
I think you meant to say “set her up.”
Do I have to edit your material, too?
Brian?
Ancient Purple
Wow! All this talk about gay-teen-bondage-line is really distracting me from the true important issue:
Prison shower scenes.
ppGaz
Soap?
Andrew
Motherfucking SoaP.
Brian
I’d prefer a lawsuit. What bothers conservatives is misrepresentation. Google calls itself a free news service. But if it’s manipulating how those news sources show up on its site, or ban them altogether, that’s not what I’d consider free news. With liberal blogs and TV shows, if they represent themselves as liberal, so be it. Truth in advertizing, and I can then go elsewhere. But if they’re representing themselves as unbiased, like the MSM does (i.e. NYT, LAT, major networks), but are clearly not, then it deserves closer scrutiny.
When Google became public, and also decided to behave differently than other public companies in its openness to the public, Wall Street, and its shareholders, it stepped into a new set of rules. Google’s already being sued for click fraud and profiting from child porn, so why not add another suit to their queue? Some public humiliation might do it some good, especially if it affects their share price.
Google is not playing in the free market as yet. It wants to play by different rules, but won’t be allowed to for long. Conservatives are winning in the blogosphere and talk radio, but it is because they are open about their biases and let the audience take their ideas at face value. As such, they are winning because their ideas are winning with the audience. If/when Google’s lack of transparency becomes more publicly known, so much shit will hit the fan, you’ll have to buy another fan.
Or, we can just put some of you on the receiving end of the shit. Fine with me.
Brian
Read and learn, kiddies. Read and learn.
DougJ
I like it Darrell. I may use Finkelstein as a new nom de blog.
DougJ
I mean “I like it, Brian or ppgaz’s mom or whoever you are.”
ppGaz
Haven’t I seen you at Scrutator, or Onion?
Try not to be so obviously ridiculous, man.
Ancient Purple
What are they winning?
Andrei
Spoken like a true libe… err…. conservative!
ppGaz
See, here’s the thing.
When your privacy is at stake, when your liberties are held in the balance, who do you want looking out for your interests …. who do you want having the stewardship of those precious protections?
Darrell. A guy who sees, and talks about, the world and the country as being divided into two parts: Himself, and the scum, the ignorant, barbaric, stupid lefties who don’t agree with him. A guy who can see clearly the bright line between good — that is, him — and evil — that is, us. A fellow who can show up for work every day and remind us, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and again, and yet again, that we are too ignorant and stupid and too much scum to understand or be able to see properly the true nature of the choices that must be made in these difficult times.
Darrell is your man. Darrell is the best possible choice for advice and guidance on matters of basic American civil protections and liberties. Darrell is the Renaissance Man, the Man for All Seasons that you want keeping an eye on things. Darrell is smart like a fox … and the perfect choice for guarding your henhouse.
DougJ
The conservative blogosphere is winning? I can hardly spoof anymore because there’s only one or two conservative blogs that get enough comments to make it interesting. And one of them posts primarily about Slate’s Bushim of the day.
I think Don Surber has the best conservative blog. I’m not kidding. (I don’t count this or Obsidian Wings as conservative.)
Slide
Bizzaro world:
Reality:
.Oh…. and the most visited political blog is Daily Kos by a wide, wide margin:
.
Brian
Slide,
If you had a drop of analytical ability, you’;d see how that list proves my point that the conservatives are winning the blogosphere.
As for the stories about radio, I don’t know what that proves. That some stations are having fluctuations in audience? If so, are they moving to Air America? And, BTW, how is Air America doing? And, while we’re on the topic, how are all those other liberal radio outlets doing? Do you have numbers for them?……(crickets chirping….).
You guys are not all that bright.
John D.
OK, I’ll bite.
I see Newsbusters, Instapundit, Malkin, and lgf as the instantly recognizable right-wing blogs. Their hits combined are still less then Kos’. How does this support your claim? It’s a serious question. I have absolutely no idea how you can look at that list and say it supports your claim.
Darrell
Here is a clue. Brian wrote:
Rush has 20 million listeners a day. Compare that number to KOS web hits, or Air America listeners.. yeah, I know, not everyone who listens to Rush agrees w/him, but no doubt not everyone who visits KOS or listens to Air America agrees with those points of view either.
Steve
Brian’s claim:
If you had a drop of analytical ability, you’;d see how that list proves my point that the conservatives are winning the blogosphere.
John’s response:
I see Newsbusters, Instapundit, Malkin, and lgf as the instantly recognizable right-wing blogs. Their hits combined are still less then Kos’. How does this support your claim?
Darrell’s “clue”:
Rush has 20 million listeners a day. Compare that number to KOS web hits, or Air America listeners..
Nope, I still don’t get how Rush’s listening audience “proves that conservatives are winning the blogosphere.”
John D.
Huh?
Your “clue” was a response to a completely different topic. Grammarians can give you a “clue” by pointing out that a paragraph beginning with “As for the stories about radio…” indicates a TOPIC SHIFT.
It’s the preceding paragraph that I was asking Brian about, since he made a claim in a dismissive tone, and I’m damned if I can find any support for his belief. So I asked — and am still awaiting an answer. Specifically, one that makes sense, which rules you out, Darrell.
Candidus
Do the Kos “diaries” really merit a single line for statistical purposes? I mean, isn’t that kinda like putting “blogspot” on a single line? They’re all little more than miniblogs of registered users.
I also see that most of the entries on Kos-proper are taken from diary contributions, but if you click on the link to an author of one of the entries, which suggests that it goes to his diary (e.g. politichimp.dailykos.com/), all you get is a copy of the main page. Perhaps the similarity between the number of hits to the main page and those to the “diaries” is no coincidence.
carot
The best is reply is the same as the question:
“If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?”
If the government is doing anything wrong why do they need to hide what they are doing. If they assert that they need their privacy for good reasons then why can’t the citizens assert the same thing?