This is not surprising. Rand Paul, similar to his father Ron Paul, has very libertarian political views which means they prefer no government involvement, not just in the Internet but anywhere. This is not as good as it sounds.<p>For example, he doesn't support FED in controlling money supply. But FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years.<p>He doesn't like energy regulations and believes free market should dictate the energy prices. Too bad when California deregulated their energy market, the prices went up 10x in some cases due to market manipulations by Enron and similar.<p>And then there is his religious agenda like anti-abortion, anti same-sex marriages, anti mandatory vaccination etc...<p>Just because he supports one or two policies we like, doesn't make him good candidate overall. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.
One thing I'm confident in is that the further Rand Paul makes in the election process, the more discussion and awareness of mass surveillance's threat to democracy itself.
If anyone is a threat to the Establishment, it is Rand Paul. He is not perfect but he can't be if he wants to win. He has a serious chance of getting the nomination and will help propel the conversation on surveillance reform and criminal justice reform. In another article, it said that he wants to eliminate jail time on all non-violent drug misdemeanors.
I would be interested in understanding how he proposes to balance US national security interests with scaling back the NSAs capabilities and Total Information Awareness. I am aware (totally ;)) that Rand Paul is considered a bit of a 'dove' and in that way represents me and many other citizens very well.<p>However, this dovish attitude failed to express itself before when it came to ISIS - just as it is likely to fail in the face of the Wolfowitz Doctrine - the primary US national security concern has been for the past 25 years that there should be no nation that grows mightily enough to challenge the United States. The defense industry is so bent on this doctrine, and the US allies and obligations so tangled up in it, it would take at least a full 8 years of effort to unravel. What's more, these absolutely radical changes to the United States would alter it inexorably (I'm not saying terribly) from its current state (perhaps closer to 1800's traditional America).<p>Provided the current challenges to US power, a retirement of global bullying would seem to represent a peaceful option in the short term - but its exactly the sort of thing that causes long term defense strategists heart attacks.<p>What's more - the NSA capabilities means are disjoint from their ends. I'm not sure whether Paul means to say that he would reverse the NSA's ends to apply their capabilities toward American citizens: thus ending surveillance - but then only by the same sort of policy that is represented by the FISA courts. He could possibly mean that he would scale back the NSA's <i>means</i>, but doing so would be absolutely untenable to anyone close to Washington especially as cyber is seen as one of the key weak areas of US defense. On this note does anyone know who would make up Rand's security council? Is he proposing to elect general doves?<p>Overall, the statement that he would end surveillance means nothing. We need to know how he would propose to end it. What would it entail? What trade-offs are being made on interacting fronts?<p>I applaud the lip service though. Even if it's bunk, let's hear some more promises to end mass surveillance. (I'd also like them to mention the DEA, FBI and other intelligence orgs - it ain't just NSA). Clinton?
All presidential candidates make similar promises when they run, and then, when they get elected, they get exposed to the true reasons why most of these programs exist and they realize the reality is not as simple as it seemed from outside. And then, they perpetuate the status quo.<p>Besides, I just can't stand libertarians who contradict their own positions saying that they want the government out of their lives except when it pertains to contraception, abortion, mandatory vaccinations and same-sex marriage.
"The president created this vast dragnet by executive order." That's a remarkable simplification. Makes a good sound bite, but demonstrates, to me anyway, that he doesn't mean what he's saying.<p>Falsifying the origin of a problem you claim to intend to fix puts that claim in quite a bit of doubt.
This is my litmus test for all future elections until this issue is resolved. There is and will never be a candidate that reflects all or even most of my positions. But, if a candidate is willing to unequivocally say that they will end domestic surveillance programs and uphold the 4th amendment, they will get my vote over anyone else who shows even the slightest hesitation, period.
I'm not in favor of a rand paul president, or even nominee. However I think it's great to at least have one candidate who can steer the conversation towards these issues.<p>Hopefully he will go after candidates on the left and right about this.
It will be a mildly entertaining distraction to watch establishment politicians squirm with this issue. Will anyone really argue in favor of dragnet surveillance?<p>But in the end it will be just that, a mildly entertaining distraction. Rand Paul has no chance, and even if he were to be elected President in a fluke, nothing much would change.
Given the current field of candidates, it's pretty much Rand Paul or More-Of-The-Same. Seriously, Hillary is just Obama-term-three and Jeb... oh Lord, talk about <i>scary</i>.
Great, the man also wants to destroy public funding of science. I understand that that is his opinion, but well fuck that. I want to be a scientist and need REUs. Science is more important than capitalism. Capitalism has failed the world.<p>edit: that last sentence was a bit much, I'll admit.
Every country with an intelligence service is working as hard at spying on the Internet as the NSA. (Albeit with less funding.)<p>I haven't heard a reasonable proposal to put that cat back into its bag, and without one Rand's statement sounds impractical and misguided, at best.
This seems like a slightly more plausible version of Newt Gingrich promising a moon colony if elected President. And by slightly more I mean something that he would most likely not fulfill once in office. All candidates promise big things to get elected and most of those things never happen.
I understand that Rand Paul is heavily into the "rights" of corporations. Is that actually true?<p>I personally am rather more worried about corporate surveillance than NSA surveillance. That's why I pay cash for everything, and take pains to blackhole web analytics servers with my hosts file.