
I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied. - scrapcode
http://camtyler.com/bs/rand-paul-on-cybersecurity
======
hkmurakami
I recalled this line by Lawrence Lessig during Rand Paul's filibuster
regarding drone strikes on American citizens:

 _There is plenty to disagree with Rand Paul about. But this filibuster is
not. Thank you, sir._ <http://twitter.com/lessig/status/309415470879100928>

I feel the same way about his efforts on Internet rights.

~~~
rubinelli
Even when you don't agree with the guy, it's refreshing seeing someone defend
a position because he believes in it, and not because his job depends on it.

~~~
threeseed

        it's refreshing seeing someone defend a position because he believes in it, and not because his job depends on it
    

You might be want to be careful with that line. Rand Paul is not stupid.

He knows how critical the "internet generation" was to his father's success.
You only had to look at how Ron Paul's supporters cleverly involved themselves
in the mechanics of the primary process to know that this was a group that
punched above its weight. Given that Rand is clearly positioning himself for
2016 every decision he makes is not necessarily altruistic.

~~~
pvnick
>Given that Rand is clearly positioning himself for 2016 every decision he
makes is not necessarily altruistic.

I don't care what his motivations are he's still got my vote by a long shot.
And that sentiment gets stronger with every mention Rand gets in the media.

------
ck2
You know that channel selection concept for consumers where you get to pick
and choose what you want and only pay for those parts?

I'd like to be able to pick and chose the parts of each individual in
Congress.

There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for.

~~~
pvnick
>There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for.

Anytime either of the Paul's do something great that hits the news (many times
a year), the armchair pundits on the internet make vague references to
everything else they do which makes them not worth voting for. Some of the
only people in congress who'll stand by their values and whom you know from
what to expect.

It's contrarian bullshit and I'm sick of it.

~~~
ebbv
Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple
of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they
are wrong on:

\- Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though
they recently pretend they aren't.

\- Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like
those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be too young to
remember but the LA smog of the 80s was pretty bad.

\- Finance regulation : They want none, basically. The practices that caused
the crash of 2008 haven't been stopped (and actually China is headed for a
much, much bigger real estate crash which could make 2008 look mild.) We need
regulation to provide a stable economy. See: Elizabeth Warren's many
interviews on this subject.

\- Right to choose : They are against a woman's right to choose.

\- Equal pay : They are against equal pay for equal work laws.

\- Food inspection : They are against food inspection and want to rely on the
free market to protect us from bad chicken and bean sprouts.

\- Health care : Again, they want a totally free market system where poor
people are basically told "Good luck, sucker!"

\- Worker's rights : Never mind unions, the Pauls are against such simple
things as safety regulations, laws requiring lunch breaks, time off, etc. for
full time workers. All workers would be at the mercy of their employers. Which
might sound great if you've only ever worked white collar jobs, but try go
working delivering car parts or something.

\- Immigration : As part of their overall isolationist viewpoint, they are not
going to treat the millions of illegal immigrants like human beings.

It's not "contrarian bullshit", it's people who actually pay attention
pointing out that being right twice a day doesn't make a good clock.

EDIT:

Because apparently I have to do all the work, I've added WHY they're wrong on
all these issues.

You may disagree with my viewpoints, but the point of this comment is to show
I have well considered reasons for not liking them.

~~~
pvnick
Your post contains zero information apart from "Here's a bunch of talking
points. _You_ go research them"

Edit: Ebbv recently changed his post to elaborate on his points, so while his
argument now basically boils down to "I'm a hardline liberal and this is where
the Pauls and I differ," my post is no longer relevant.

~~~
smutticus
All I learned from your two posts was that you are very angry. ebbv is listing
actual positions of the Pauls on various issues. If you think he's wrong then
call him out on them.

~~~
rubikscube
His points aren't even written coherently, but are slogans. e.g. "right to
choose" and "They are against equal pay for equal work laws." He would have to
demonstrate where Ron Paul and Rand Paul stated they are for inequality of pay
for equal work. When you look at the issues, they aren't the same thing the
juvenile slogans make them out to be.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Unfortunately, Paul wasn't in the Senate for their 2009 vote on Ledbetter.
But, do you honestly think that someone who opposes anti-segregation laws
because they 'tell business what to do' would have voted for an equal pay
bill?

------
benjamincburns
I know this is obnoxious to post on HN, but since you're pushing the
discussion here...

> One of the few that are fighting against our privacy and rights on the
> internet is KY Senator Rand Paul.

I think you meant "fighting _for_ our privacy?"

~~~
scrapcode
Indeed I did. Thanks.

------
mlader
Well, whether or not you agree with Rand Paul as a politician, I think an
actual discussion of the economics at hand would be more fruitful. And by the
economics, I do not mean "regulation attacks our liberties and cripples the
economy," but more specifically I'm interested in the following quote:

"Many of the calls for additional legislation depend on the false premise that
there is a 'market failure' regarding cybersecurity, and that businesses
cannot adequately protect themselves."

From what I understand, the Obama administration believes that cybersecurity
is a public good, and that there is a free riding problem. One company finds a
vulnerability or comes up with a new security solution, shares that
information with other companies, and then everyone benefits. The idea is that
many companies would assume that others will put in the resources to solve
these problems, and that they can benefit from the resulting information.

Overall expenditure in cybersecurity may be increasing, however, I'm curious
what the distribution of spending looks like across various industries. Are
there a few players that make up the large portion of spending, or is it
spread out among more companies. In the former, a free rider problem seems
more likely, while in the latter I don't really see a problem.

Personally, I'd assume that many companies are very worried about
cybersecurity and free riding is a minor issue. It's bad for a business'
bottom line and reputation to have a security breach, especially if they deal
with customer finances. Honestly though, I do not know enough about the
industry and would love to hear from someone who is more familiar with the
economics and incentives.

------
da3da
Just a nit-picky thing, but I thought it would be nice to get a heads-up. In
the third sentence of the first paragraph it should be "your senators" rather
than "you're senators"

------
calinet6
Please:

blockquote { color: #333; }

