In Dean's latest article, he insists that we Americans are stoopid to believe that eavesdropping on terrorist conversations is a good thing:
Millions of Americans buy this logic, and in accepting it, believe they are doing the right thing for themselves, their family, and their friends, neighbors, community and country. They are sadly wrong. If you accept this argument, you have been badly fooled.So tell us how we've been fooled Johny-boy! Well the Deanster does just that...sort of. Basically he says we all need to read up on "Law School Professor Daniel J. Solove" (I have no idea why Dean capitalizes "law school professor", as if it is some kind of official title). Solove is apparently the Einstein of privacy:
[H]e writes, "to understand privacy, we must conceptualize it and its value more pluralistically." Through several years of work, Solove has developed a more nuanced concept of privacy that rebuts the idea that there is a "one-size-fits-all conception of privacy."Well isn't that special. Dean then describes Solove's work in a rambling babble that makes absolutely no sense. There is absolutely no analysis relating whatever it is he's talking about to terrorism. Basically, in typical liberal fashion, he tells the reader "a Professor says it is so" and you must therefore Believe. Then Dean says:
... members of Congress should look at Solove's work. Too many of them have no idea what privacy is all about, and grossly underestimate the value of this complex and essential concept.Of course they should. Defer to a law professor instead of common sense. Why? Where's the argument? Do any other [L]aw [P]rofessors disagree with Solove, or is he some kind of supreme being (like Dean)?
I beseech thee reader, examine Dean's background instead of relying on FindLaw's scandalously biased "bio" on him. It is a disgrace to the few talented FindLaw contributors that this charlatan shares the same blog.