PDA

View Full Version : Privacy is Dead – Get over it



chloe
01-15-2010, 08:21 PM
This speech of privacy expert Steven Rambam gives deep insight into the possibilities of privacy invasion through tools that are freely available on the internet. He gives examples of myspace, facebook, blogs, etc. and also shows how companies like Google or even Domino’s Pizza are using data-mining to get a profile of their customers. One of my favorite quotes is, when he talks about the possibilities that mobile phones offer for data collection:

“The iPhone uses both, GPS and Skyhook - you can’t hide – the only way to hide from this is to take out the battery – oh, wait a second … you can’t take the battery out of an iPhone!” [1:12:35]
This documentary is quite long – around 3 hours – but if you care just a little bit about your privacy, it is worth every minute!

Steve Rambam Privacy is Dead – Get over it! (Part


http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/watch-free-documentary-films-online

Luna Tick
02-01-2010, 10:12 PM
I'm concerned about these web pages where you can pay some money and get TONS of info about a person -- all their addresses, phone numbers, etc. It's scary.

chloe
02-01-2010, 10:25 PM
I'm concerned about these web pages where you can pay some money and get TONS of info about a person -- all their addresses, phone numbers, etc. It's scary.


Yeah but thats just how it is I guess.....

Trinity
02-02-2010, 07:30 AM
I'm concerned about these web pages where you can pay some money and get TONS of info about a person -- all their addresses, phone numbers, etc. It's scary.

You know that comment is really funny.....you can get all of that info for free without ever having to pay a fee. The people who do use those sites and pay the fee are usually dumb-asses who don't bother to read anything before signing up, and then giving there credit card info.

How do I know this? I deal with this on a daily basis out of 100 phone calls 80 of them are people telling me I had no idea I was signing up for this free trial. I just wanted a phone number. If they would have read the pages during the sign up instead of clicking through they would have seen they were given a free 7 day trial to my company when they purchased the phone number etc. They also receive a welcome email with instructions on how to log into their account.

Although 75 of these phone calls these people have been charged 2 or more months for services and they are just now realizing it (do people not check their credit card and bank statements)

The best part is when they call in all pissed off and blame us for charging there card like they did not give there credit card info over the internet.

Typical phone call I receive...............

Me) Thank you for calling ______ _______ how may I help you?

Caller) (in a very pissed off irate tone of voice)I have an unauthorized charge on my bank statement and I have no idea who you are or how you got my card number but I want this canceled and a refund put back on my card.

Me) can I get your first and last name so I can pull up the account?

Caller) __________ __________

Me) Ok it looks like you must have used _______ back on ________ do you recall using that site?

Caller) (still sounding a little pissed off but tones changing) yes, but I was only looking for a phone number

Me) Ok well when you used that site you were given a 7 day free trial and if you did not cancel within the 7 days then we start billing you for the services each month.

Caller) (in a very oh shit I screwed up tone) Oh I didn't realize that I don't remember seeing that when I signed up.

Me) It was during the registration process and you should have received a welcome email as well.

Caller) (in a very polite tone of voice) ok well i didn't want that can i cancel it?

Me) Yes I will get that canceled for you right now.

Caller) Thank you!

Me) your welcome and you should have received a confirmation email that the account has been canceled and you will not receive any more charges from us.

Caller) Thank you so much!

Me) your welcome, thank you for calling ______ ________ have a great day!


:laugh2:

Free Speech
07-17-2010, 04:19 PM
I'm concerned about these web pages where you can pay some money and get TONS of info about a person -- all their addresses, phone numbers, etc. It's scary.
You mean family tree sites, online dating sites, privacy protection/detective sites, military sites, government sites, colleges, highschools, kindergardens, nursery schools, home schooling, daycare, nanny/babysitter sites, porn sites, swinger sites, even nudist/naturist sites?

There's a law that personal information of anyone may not trade hands until the person dies, and even then a respectable period of time must pass before a lifestyle database can be formed.
The "Freedom Of Information Act" overrides that law if the person feels his or her life might be in danger or is an official document that society as a whole needs to know about, such as the possibility of a bank robber, murderer, kidnapper, child molester/rapist, or paedophile.

If their is a false accusation or the person wants revenge or something, I am scared that info would get out as well (mainly because I am in that situation).

Those graduation and family reunion sites (including "The Locater" TV show) are nothing but scams!
By their own admission, third parties and advertisers will also receive this info.

revelarts
07-17-2010, 07:43 PM
It's only inevitable if we concede to idea that it is.
the same brilliance that created the problem can create a solution. if enough people demand it. And stop buying the hype.

You can't tell me that there's no way to make a cell phone position anonymous. I don't buy it. you can't tell me that google can't stop tracking and storing every thing we do on their site. It would mean that they lose some money but I don't think they'll wither up and fold.

Lets not be so quick to lie down to the tech companies, were their customers and they are suppose to serve us not track us.
If we start throwing some CEO's in jail I bet they'll find away to make everyone anonymous.

That's my rant in the wilderness on that.

Free Speech
07-17-2010, 09:08 PM
It's only inevitable if we concede to idea that it is.
the same brilliance that created the problem can create a solution. if enough people demand it. And stop buying the hype.

You can't tell me that there's no way to make a cell phone position anonymous. I don't buy it. you can't tell me that google can't stop tracking and storing every thing we do on their site. It would mean that they lose some money but I don't think they'll wither up and fold.

Lets not be so quick to lie down to the tech companies, were their customers and they are suppose to serve us not track us.
If we start throwing some CEO's in jail I bet they'll find away to make everyone anonymous.

That's my rant in the wilderness on that.

We tried that with the DMCA remember:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation Pushes for DMCA Reform (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1343)
FAIR USE Act analysis: DMCA reform left on the cutting room floor (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/02/8942.ars)

Things like this don't change, and why should it?
Yes I want things to change also, but some dummies decided to destroy the World Trade Center and things went spiraling out of control.
Now security trumps privacy and the people have accepted it.

Sweetchuck
07-21-2010, 10:04 PM
I never understood how people can put privacy above security as a priority - and the whole invasion of privacy whining is over-blown, but if I had a choice between having some bureaucrat reading an email to my wife to pick up some beer while she's out and some crackpot flying a turboprop into the building where I work, take a guess what I'm picking.

Mr. P
07-21-2010, 10:19 PM
I never understood how people can put privacy above security as a priority - and the whole invasion of privacy whining is over-blown, but if I had a choice between having some bureaucrat reading an email to my wife to pick up some beer while she's out and some crackpot flying a turboprop into the building where I work, take a guess what I'm picking.
Doesn't matter cuz that bureaucrat could give a shit what YOU pick.

revelarts
07-21-2010, 11:02 PM
I never understood how people can put privacy above security as a priority - and the whole invasion of privacy whining is over-blown, but if I had a choice between having some bureaucrat reading an email to my wife to pick up some beer while she's out and some crackpot flying a turboprop into the building where I work, take a guess what I'm picking.

I never understood why people trust the gov't to look in every crack they've got without at least having the ability to do the same in triplicate to the bureaucrats, Police, Military and politicians 1ST!
Or that Gov't somehow always has our best interest at heart.
Or that they need to look at your wife's email to find a turboprop. Last time I looked they were parked at the airport.

Getting a warrant and having probably cause is not to high a hurdle to climb.
No matter what your take on 911 the gov't had more than enough info to stop the attacks. But it was locked up in different agencies that wouldn't or couldn't talk to each other. My wife's email or phone conversation would not bring them any closer to stopping the attacks. Sharing the info they already had LEGALLY would have. they had the info on the underwear bomber but didn't stop him. His father volunteered info and he didn't have a valid passport and it took a passenger to say HEY THAT GUYS PANTS ARE ON FIRE to get things moving. And if that underwear bombers the best they've got we shouldn't be worried , IF the FBI-CIA-etc just do their regular jobs.
Plus safety in many ways is an illusion isn't it?
The country wasn't founded by guys saying "Give me safety or give me Death." Being secure in your property, e-papers and effects is not something to be taken lightly.

I don't buy the gov't line that they need to get more info , WITHOUT PROBABLY CAUSE, or through torture, to keep us safe. BS, BS, BS!
It's Major BS.

see you got me started

Mr. P
07-21-2010, 11:08 PM
What is this "WITHOUT PROBABLY CAUSE" you speak of? :poke:

revelarts
07-21-2010, 11:09 PM
Doesn't matter cuz that bureaucrat could give a shit what YOU pick.

THATS the nut of it isn't it.

Sweetchuck
07-21-2010, 11:15 PM
I never understood why people trust the gov't to look in every crack they've got without at least having the ability to do the same in triplicate to the bureaucrats, Police, Military and politicians 1ST!
Or that Gov't somehow always has our best interest at heart.
Or that they need to look at your wife's email to find a turboprop. Last time I looked they were parked at the airport.

Getting a warrant and having probably cause is not to high a hurdle to climb.
No matter what your take on 911 the gov't had more than enough info to stop the attacks. But it was locked up in different agencies that wouldn't or couldn't talk to each other. My wife's email or phone conversation would not bring them any closer to stopping the attacks. Sharing the info they already had LEGALLY would have. they had the info on the underwear bomber but didn't stop him. His father volunteered info and he didn't have a valid passport and it took a passenger to say HEY THAT GUYS PANTS ARE ON FIRE to get things moving. And if that underwear bombers the best they've got we shouldn't be worried , IF the FBI-CIA-etc just do their regular jobs.
Plus safety in many ways is an illusion isn't it?
The country wasn't founded by guys saying "Give me safety or give me Death." Being secure in your property, e-papers and effects is not something to be taken lightly.

I don't buy the gov't line that they need to get more info , WITHOUT PROBABLY CAUSE, or through torture, to keep us safe. BS, BS, BS!
It's Major BS.

see you got me started

Fair point, but let's look at the outcomes.

Show me where there were gross violations of the Patriot Act.

revelarts
07-21-2010, 11:32 PM
Fair point, but let's look at the outcomes.

Show me where there were gross violations of the Patriot Act.

OK but It's late.
I'll be back.

revelarts
07-21-2010, 11:33 PM
What is this "WITHOUT PROBABLY CAUSE" you speak of? :poke:
:lol: :(
http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac169/revelarts/tumblr_l5s29nhnWm1qata4m.gif

Mr. P
07-22-2010, 01:23 AM
:lol: :(
http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac169/revelarts/tumblr_l5s29nhnWm1qata4m.gif

You are such a show off!!!

Gaffer
07-22-2010, 09:48 AM
Hey rev it's probable cause not probably cause.

revelarts
07-22-2010, 10:27 AM
Mr. P.,
Laugh, cry, jump out the window. It kinda sums up how I feel a lot of days


Hey rev it's probable cause not probably cause.

If that's the only spelling or grammar issue you were able to find then I'm doing a lot better than usual.
--------


Alright
Patriot act abuses, there's some in all forms here are a few .. for starters
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2003/nov/04/patriot-act-aided-feds-in-probe/


Patriot Act aided feds in probe
Jace Radke
Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2003 | 11:19 a.m.

Federal officials used the Patriot Act to get financial records for current and former politicians as part of the ongoing political corruption probe involving strip club owner Michael Galardi's influence, sources said.

Among those whose records were accessed were Clark County Commission Chairwoman Mary Kincaid-Chauncey, former commissioners Dario Herrera, Erin Kenny and Lance Malone, Las Vegas City Councilman Michael Mack and former Councilman Michael McDonald, sources said.

It wasn't clear what the documents were but sources said the documents were related to the political corruption probe and Galardi's attempts to sway several politicians. All but Mack have been identified as potential targets or subjects of the investigation.

FBI spokesman Jim Stern confirmed Monday that the U.S. Patriot Act was used to obtain financial information in the political corruption investigation.

"A section of the Patriot Act was used appropriately by the FBI and clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," Stern told the Sun.

According to the Patriot Act's provisions the Treasury Department can request information from financial institutions, such as banks, in investigations dealing with suspected terrorists or money launderers...




Terror arrests devolving to charges on lesser crimes
President pushes Patriot Act with numbers that are misleading
Dan Eggen, Julie Tate, Washington Post
washington post June 12, 2005 04:00 AM Copyright washington post.

Sunday, June 12, 2005


...Flanked by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."..

...An analysis of the Justice Department's list of terrorism prosecutions by the Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200 -- have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.

Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. Overall, the median sentence was just 11 months.

Taken as a whole, the data indicate that identifying terrorists in the United States has been less successful than the government has often suggested. The statistics provide little support for the suggestion that authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists. Except for a small number of well-known cases -- such as truck driver Iyman Faris, who sought to take down the Brooklyn Bridge -- few appear to have been involved in active plots against the United States.

Few terror ties

In fact, among all the people charged as a result of terrorism investigations in the three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them.

Just one in nine individuals on the list had an alleged connection to the al Qaeda terrorist network and only 14 people convicted of terrorism-related crimes -- including Faris and convicted Sept. 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui -- have clear links to the group. Many more cases involve Colombian drug cartels, supporters of the Palestinian cause, Rwandan war criminals or others with no apparent ties to al Qaeda or its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Many people appear to have been swept into U.S. counterterrorism investigations by chance -- through anonymous tips, suspicious circumstances or bad luck -- and have remained classified as terrorism defendants years after being cleared of connections to extremist groups.

For example, the prosecution of 20 men, most of them Iraqis, in a Pennsylvania truck-licensing scam accounts for about 10 percent of individuals convicted -- even though the entire group was publicly absolved of ties to terrorism in 2001.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/12/MNGJND7G531.DTL#ixzz0uQAZyR5G
...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/judge_orders_fb/

Judge Orders FBI to Turn Over Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents

Just one day after a news that an internal audit found that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1,000 times, a federal judge ordered the agency Friday to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency’s use of a powerful, but extremely secretive investigative tool that can pry into telephone and internet records.

The order for monthly document releases commencing July 5 came in response to a government sunshine request by a civil liberties group, which sued in April over the FBI’s foot-dragging on its broad request.

The April request from the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked the FBI to turn over documents related to its misuse of National Security Letters, self-issued subpoenas that don’t need a judge’s approval and which can get financial, phone and internet records. Recipients of the letters are forbidden by law from ever telling anyone other than their lawyer that they received the request. Though initially warned to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans. Information obtained from the requests, which need only be certified by the agency to be "relevant" to an investigation, are dumped into a data-mining warehouse for perpetuity.

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/judge_orders_fb/#ixzz0uPas2EdM



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/06/laser_man_charged/


Patriot Act used to quell laser pointer terror
Don't look now

By Ashlee Vance in Chicago

Posted in Bootnotes, 6th January 2005 00:51 GMT

A New Jersey miracle man has been charged under the Patriot Act for allegedly shining a laser into two pilots' eyes.

David Banach could face up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine for disrupting the operator of a mass transportation vehicle - a charge covered under the controversial Patriot Act - and lying to the FBI. Authorities claim that Banach, 38, admitted to shining a laser at a jet plane and at a helicopter flying over his home. The jet pilots were momentarily blinded by the green laser light, according to state officials. Their Cessna Citation flying at 3,000 feet had six passengers.

Earlier this week, the FBI dismissed the idea that a string of "laser in the cockpit" incidents were part of a terrorist plot to bother pilots. The Feds, however, have now applied the long arm of the Patriot Act - invented after the Sept. 11 attacks - to Banach's supposed crime.

"We are not saying this is a grand terrorist incident," U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie told the New York Post. "We have to send a clear message to the public - no matter what the intent was."

Banach says he was simply playing with his daughter, showing off the new laser bought for his job as a fiber optic cable tester. His lawyer Gina Mendola Longarzo said the state is using Banach as a "sacrificial lamb."

"I don't think the Patriot Act was enacted to cover this kind of unintentional conduct," she told the Post.

Beyond the possible misuse of the Patriot Act, there are other issues here. After reading our laser story earlier in the week, a number of Register readers questioned the odds of anyone on the ground being able to shine a laser into the eye of a pilot. Banach is supposed to have hit the jet three times with his laser, managing to strike the pilots' pupils at least once. That's quite an amazing feat.

Maybe the FBI should really be looking for Cyclops. The X-MEN are headquartered in New York after all...


October 29 2004 ST. HELENS, Ore. -
Homeland Security Agents Visit Toy Store
So far as she knows, Pufferbelly Toys owner Stephanie Cox hasn't been passing any state secrets to sinister foreign governments, or violating obscure clauses in the Patriot Act.

So she was taken aback by a mysterious phone call from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to her small store in this quiet Columbia River town just north of Portland.

"I was shaking in my shoes," Cox said of the September phone call. "My first thought was the government can shut your business down on a whim, in my opinion. If I'm closed even for a day that would cause undue stress."

When the two agents arrived at the store, the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time.

He told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.

After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash. A representative told her that Rubik's Cube patent had expired, and the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark.

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C.

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.

Six weeks after her brush with Homeland Security, Cox told The Oregonian she is still bewildered by the experience.

"Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/


Google chief: Only miscreants worry about net privacy

'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'

By Cade Metz in San Francisco • Get more from this author

Posted in Music and Media, 7th December 2009 19:56 GMT

Free whitepaper – The Reg Guide to Solutions for the Virtual Era

If you're concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing. At least that's the word from Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC, sparking howls of incredulity from the likes of Gawker.

But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data.

"If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

There's also the possibility of subpoenas. And hacks. But if any of this bothers you, you should be ashamed of yourself. According to Eric Schmidt....
Gawker highlights the irony of Schmidt's typically haughty proclamations. After all, this is the man who banned CNet for a year after the news site published information about him it had gleaned from, yes, Google....


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/20/fbi_phone/


FBI faked terror alerts to get phone records
The FBI fabricated terrorism emergencies to obtain thousands of phone records between 2002 and 2006, it's been revealed.

The Bureau created "exigent letters" to get around rules that had already been significantly loosened by the Patriot Act. The letters were used to obtain some 2,000 phone records, The Washington Post reports.

Washington Post and New York Times journalists were among the targets.

The internal concerns were confirmed in emails that are part of an investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general, which is due to report this month.

As well as fabricating emergencies, FBI counter-terror investigators obtained phone records by simply leaning on operators, getting approval after the fact with blanket authorizations.

The Patriot Act allowed investigators to effectively self-certify their requests for communications data, using a "National Security Letter" (NSL), a type of subpoena without judicial oversight. The Justice Department has found that by fabricating emergencies and sending NSLs after it had obtained phone records, the FBI violated what civil liberties protections remained.

In response, the FBI claimed that although it did not follow statutory process to obtain the records, they were all legitimate targets for investigation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/27/patriot_act_mayfield/


Federal judge slams Patriot Act
Feds push for new, zestier Fourth Amendment

By Burke Hansen in San Francisco • Get more from this author
Posted in Law, 27th September 2007 10:39 GMT

A federal judge today struck down provisions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional, adding fuel to the politically charged debate over the controversial law.

US District Judge Ann Aiken slammed Patriot Act amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for eviscerating the Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects against unwarranted government searches, and can only be modified by further constitutional amendment.

Judge Ann Aiken ruled that FISA "permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment".

"For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

The case was brought by Brandon Mayfield, a Portland attorney whose life was turned upside down by the feds after he was mistakenly fingered by the FBI for involvement in the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Mayfield settled for $2m, but retained the right to challenge the Patriot Act in court.

Judge Aiken dismissed the government's arguments with extreme prejudice, accusing the US attorney general's office of "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so".

But Is it an abuse if you can't prosecute the gov't for it?


Obama's DoJ defends Bush-era wiretaps
Telecoms spy program a 'state secret'

By Austin Modine • Get more from this author

The US Justice Department under President Obama is invoking Bush Administration tactics to dismiss a lawsuit alleging federal agents engaged in illegal phone and email surveillance of ordinary US citizens.

A motion submitted to US District Judge Walker on Friday claims disclosing information on the National Security Agency's warrentless wiretapping program would "cause exceptionally grave harm to national security."

The 36-page brief invokes"state secrets" privileges to keep mum on the case, and claims the 2001 Patriot Act grants government agencies an umbrella "sovereign immunity" for domestic spy programs.

The buck can't stop here, the DoJ said today. The filing argues the statutory claims of the seventeen-count complaint against the US are invalid because congress hasn't waived sovereign immunity granted by the Patriot Act of 2001. Constitutional claims should also be waived because "at every stage," the claims would "require or risk the disclosure of information that is properly subject to the state secrets privilege."



FBI withdraws secret Internet Archive probe
By Dan Goodin in San Francisco • Get more from this author

Posted in Security, 7th May 2008 22:08 GMT

The FBI has withdrawn a secret order that used new anti-terrorism powers to demand information about a user of the Internet Archive without a court order after attorneys challenged it as an unconstitutional abuse of power.

The victory for the San Francisco-based digital library meant that its founder was able to speak publicly about the sweeping demand, known as an NSL or national security letter, for the first time on Wednesday. Up until now, the demand for personal information about an undisclosed Internet Archive patron was protected by a gag order that prevented all but a handful of people from knowing it even existed.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the use of NSLs has proved a popular tool for getting information in government investigations if it is deemed relevant to terrorism or espionage. More than 200,000 of them were issued between 2003 and 2006, and yet, because of the secrecy surrounding them, only three have been known to have been challenged in court. Remarkably, all three challenges have succeeded.

"The NSL basically allows the FBI to demand extremely sensitive personal information about innocent people without any prior court approval, often in total secrecy without any meaningful judicial review," Melissa Goodman, one of the attorneys representing the Internet Archive, said during a telephone conference with reporters. "It makes you wonder about the hundreds of thousands of other NSLs that have never been challenged and we know there are many."....

There are reports of Dell computer asking Customers "what are you going to using the servers for" "we have to ask because of the Patriot Act... and by the way your being recorded".

Sweetchuck
07-22-2010, 06:57 PM
Easy, slim. Pick one for now, preferably from a credible source and one that has had a material impact and let's break that down.

Just posting pages of stuff is self defeating.

Kathianne
07-22-2010, 06:59 PM
Easy, slim. Pick one for now, preferably from a credible source and one that has had a material impact and let's break that down.

Just posting pages of stuff is self defeating.

Well said, I went hunting many of those, some were reliable, others less so. I get the feeling they were lifted from a site with an agenda. Maybe not?

Sweetchuck
07-22-2010, 07:18 PM
Well said, I went hunting many of those, some were reliable, others less so. I get the feeling they were lifted from a site with an agenda. Maybe not?

Yeah, I'm trying not to be a dick - revelarts is being pretty objective about this and I would like to debate it with him, he could wind up proving me wrong, but I sensed the exact same thing you did. I'm not so sure of the credibility of some of those sources or the materiality of the issues.

And there were a lot of them, so let's look at them one story at a time.

revelarts
07-22-2010, 11:46 PM
alright guys Please define a credible source. I mean we've got the
Washington post, a local Las Vegas newspaper, the Register is an British IT news paper and Wired magazine here. None of those are credible?

the register is a bit anti authoritarian but they don't have an agenda to speak of that i can tell. But many of their stories are lifted from U.S. papers or trails and stuff.

Not sure what you mean by a materiel impact.
and at 1st you asked for gross violations. Are you raising the bar on me Sweets?

the patriots act was sold as something necessary to catch foreign terrorist in the U.S. giving up some of our rights for our safety.

but based on the articles I've posted (and more info not)it's clear that they've used the patriot act for many other purposes and even gone beyond the it's wider bounds.
warrantless wire tapes and multiple thousands of letters demanding personal info from various entities that can't even speak of the contact.
That last bit doesn't sound like America. it sounds like what we didn't want to be when talking about the Soviets years ago. I mean secret police in your house, spying on your bank account, job and phone.
To me that's material impact, even if they never charge me. We are the ones who are suppose to give the gov't authority to do certain things if they over step their bounds they have broken the law and need to be punished.

Seems to me the onus should be on the other end. Have the provisions of the patriot act really done what we were told it would do. Materially, do we have outstanding examples. Where the provisions specifically stopped serious terrorist in a away that the previous laws could not?