Eye on Americans - the FBI's Database on YOU

[nismaratwork]

Completely agree with you there.

Oh, I can never stay mad at you calico-cat faced avatar guy!

 

[Proton Soup]

You cobbled together unrelated quotes there, but in any case: None of our rights are absolute, including our right to privacy -- and regardless, how is that relevant? Profiling doesn't require obtaining private information, so the right to privacy isn't relevant.

Please explain in more detail what you think is unethical in those quotes.

you think this:

Profiling is a critically important police tactic.

and this:

Non sequitur. Not only are we not in a position to know if it is useful, whether it is useful doesn't have any bearing on the ethics of doing it. All that matters is that the police think it is useful.

are unrelated?

now, a couple of things. we may disagree about what constitutes public and private. if you pay attention to what is happening with police arresting people for taping them, you'd notice that they are claiming their privacy is being invaded, even when in uniform. and probably most people would agree that following them around in public when they're off-duty might be crossing the line. even though they are in public, it might be an invasion of their privacy. and modern data collection on ones daily activities, especially by government agencies, might also be considered invasive and an infringement on ones privacy. and what about my medical records? i consider that private information, even though it does end up in some company's database. should the government be allowed to purchase access to the for the purposes of profiling? the trouble is, we are in one of those areas again where the founders could not have foreseen the level of monitoring that is possible with new technology. somehow, i don't think they would approve.

and the other thing, of course, is that there is a fine line between profiling and prejudice. and prejudices of course lead to harassment and infringement of liberty.

 

[nismaratwork]

you think this:

and this:

are unrelated?

now, a couple of things. we may disagree about what constitutes public and private. if you pay attention to what is happening with police arresting people for taping them, you'd notice that they are claiming their privacy is being invaded, even when in uniform. and probably most people would agree that following them around in public when they're off-duty might be crossing the line. even though they are in public, it might be an invasion of their privacy. and modern data collection on ones daily activities, especially by government agencies, might also be considered invasive and an infringement on ones privacy. and what about my medical records? i consider that private information, even though it does end up in some company's database. should the government be allowed to purchase access to the for the purposes of profiling? the trouble is, we are in one of those areas again where the founders could not have foreseen the level of monitoring that is possible with new technology. somehow, i don't think they would approve.

and the other thing, of course, is that there is a fine line between profiling and prejudice. and prejudices of course lead to harassment and infringement of liberty.

Would this country exist if the day after Thomas Jefferson slept with one of his slaves, it was known by everyone in the colony? I think men of such a time would have understood the need for privacy, for the right to conduct legal (if not accepted or moral) actions in private. Beyond that, maybe the founders could have forseen massive bombs, or bigger guns... but live HD video with sound through a pinhole?... nah. I think we need to be having more of these discussions before we just roll out the tech and the troops so to speak.

 

[edward]

It looks like it is time to re-post an old link. Spying on the Home Front.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/

Not much has changed except the sheer volume of information that has been collected.

BTW the FBI still uses private companies to do the data mining.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Unless it is checked and proven there is a connection between me and anti-G20 supporters then it shouldn't be something that comes up on a record check.

The problem with pervasive monitoring is that there is too much data for careful legal in-court type checks. The checks become automated and since nothing is ever proved it all just becomes 'background suspicion' - then inevitably for the "safety of the children" or to be "tough on crime" or to fight a "war on terrorism" then somebody raises the bar so a suspicion is enough to act on.

 

[nismaratwork]

The problem with pervasive monitoring is that there is too much data for careful legal in-court type checks. The checks become automated and since nothing is ever proved it all just becomes 'background suspicion' - then inevitably for the "safety of the children" or to be "tough on crime" or to fight a "war on terrorism" then somebody raises the bar so a suspicion is enough to act on.

People are so scared of the one in a (million? 10 million? more?) of being killed by a terrorist that they sell their liberties for the illusion of safety. It's pathetic.

 

[mugaliens]

People are so scared of the one in a (million? 10 million? more?) of being killed by a terrorist that they sell their liberties for the illusion of safety. It's pathetic.

It's approximately 1 in 100,000 over a thirty-year period, but you're right - people's fears and our country's fear-based reaction have been driven by media, not statistics.

Compare the 1 in 100,000 chance of being a terrorism victin to the odds of dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the mismatch in numbers becomes extraordinary. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something! I'm saying we should re-direct funding towards those efforts which aren't so extradinarily costly in terms of human lives.

Meanwhile, my chances of being the victim of a violent crime over the same thirty-year period are approximately 1 in 600, and that's in one of the safest communities here in the U.S. That's about 160 times greater than my chances of being a victim of terrorism.

What if the profile goes something like this: Imagine the FBI has intelligence which indicates domestic terrorists are likely to use a specific (legal) weapon. Therefore, from now on all Americans who buy or own that type of weapon should be flagged for increased scrutiny.

If you've done nothing wrong, and even if the activity that got you flagged is guaranteed by the Constitution, is it OK for the government to track you?

You raise a great point, Lisa, one that's becoming a hot button here in Colorado. It seems the state police and other law enforcement agencies have been keeping and using a database of those who carry concealed handgun permits (CHP) despite the fact that the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 18-12-206 Parts 3(a) and 3(b)(I)) makes it patently illegal for them to do so. "When asked whether the database was useful, 72 percent of 74 responding officers said it was. Many said it kept law enforcement officers safer because they knew who was armed with a gun. Their perception was mistaken, however, the audit noted." - http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16900805#ixzz18fwuXHjs"

Aside from the illegality of the database itself, their line of reasoning is absurd for two reasons:

1. Obtaining a CHP requires a background check substantial enough that the fast majority of those who wouldn't qualify never bother to apply. Even so, nearly 1 in 10 of those who do apply are rejected. Furthermore, FBI stats show that CHP holders are many times less likely to be involved in any sort of violent confrontation than are members of the general public. Thus, those with a CHP are among the safest people they're likely to stop, whether they're carrying a firearm or not.

2. As anyone can carry a firearm in their vehicle here in Colorado, any assumption about knowing who is armed or not by using the CHP database merely gives law enforcement a very false sense of security. It's the ones about which they don't have any information that are the ones likely to cause trouble!

Regardless, the reason it's illegal for other law enforcement agencies to keep such a database is because of the potential for gross misuse, including profiling with justifications like the one given in this article.

Thankfully, a few county sheriff's appear to have actually read the law, and instead of illegally sharing their CHP database with other law enforcement agencies as prohibited by C.R.S., they're actually following the law. Thank you, Sheriff Terry Makita!

Thus, is profiling bad? Not in itself, as it can significantly reduce the time it takes to narrow down a list of suspects, while increasing the liklihood of legally stopping them before mayhem ensues.

When it leads to wrong conclusions, such as is happening with the illegal CHP database here in Colorado, however, yes, it's bad.

 

[WhoWee]

It's approximately 1 in 100,000 over a thirty-year period, but you're right - people's fears and our country's fear-based reaction have been driven by media, not statistics.

Compare the 1 in 100,000 chance of being a terrorism victin to the odds of dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the mismatch in numbers becomes extraordinary. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something! I'm saying we should re-direct funding towards those efforts which aren't so extradinarily costly in terms of human lives.

Meanwhile, my chances of being the victim of a violent crime over the same thirty-year period are approximately 1 in 600, and that's in one of the safest communities here in the U.S. That's about 160 times greater than my chances of being a victim of terrorism.

Let's not forget that some people are more at risk than others, with NY and Washington leading the list of targets. Also, people who fly often might be at a greater risk than people who've never flown. Anyone who lives near a seaport might be more at risk than someone who lives near a midwest corn field.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's approximately 1 in 100,000 over a thirty-year period, but you're right - people's fears and our country's fear-based reaction have been driven by media, not statistics.

Compare the 1 in 100,000 chance of being a terrorism victin to the odds of dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the mismatch in numbers becomes extraordinary. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something! I'm saying we should re-direct funding towards those efforts which aren't so extradinarily costly in terms of human lives.

Meanwhile, my chances of being the victim of a violent crime over the same thirty-year period are approximately 1 in 600, and that's in one of the safest communities here in the U.S. That's about 160 times greater than my chances of being a victim of terrorism.



You raise a great point, Lisa, one that's becoming a hot button here in Colorado. It seems the state police and other law enforcement agencies have been keeping and using a database of those who carry concealed handgun permits (CHP) despite the fact that the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 18-12-206 Parts 3(a) and 3(b)(I)) makes it patently illegal for them to do so. "When asked whether the database was useful, 72 percent of 74 responding officers said it was. Many said it kept law enforcement officers safer because they knew who was armed with a gun. Their perception was mistaken, however, the audit noted." - http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16900805#ixzz18fwuXHjs"

Aside from the illegality of the database itself, their line of reasoning is absurd for two reasons:

1. Obtaining a CHP requires a background check substantial enough that the fast majority of those who wouldn't qualify never bother to apply. Even so, nearly 1 in 10 of those who do apply are rejected. Furthermore, FBI stats show that CHP holders are many times less likely to be involved in any sort of violent confrontation than are members of the general public. Thus, those with a CHP are among the safest people they're likely to stop, whether they're carrying a firearm or not.

2. As anyone can carry a firearm in their vehicle here in Colorado, any assumption about knowing who is armed or not by using the CHP database merely gives law enforcement a very false sense of security. It's the ones about which they don't have any information that are the ones likely to cause trouble!

Regardless, the reason it's illegal for other law enforcement agencies to keep such a database is because of the potential for gross misuse, including profiling with justifications like the one given in this article.

Thankfully, a few county sheriff's appear to have actually read the law, and instead of illegally sharing their CHP database with other law enforcement agencies as prohibited by C.R.S., they're actually following the law. Thank you, Sheriff Terry Makita!

Thus, is profiling bad? Not in itself, as it can significantly reduce the time it takes to narrow down a list of suspects, while increasing the liklihood of legally stopping them before mayhem ensues.

When it leads to wrong conclusions, such as is happening with the illegal CHP database here in Colorado, however, yes, it's bad.

Wow... your point #2 really punches this idiocy full of holes. I want to see the patrol cops come out and say on the record that they're going to assume that a license plate that doesn't match to a gun owner (legal or illegal), so they'll leave their firearm and caution in their cruiser. I really REALLY would pay to see that, because one of my friends is a cop from a big extended family of cops (and a few robbers...), and every cop I've ever talked to says that they're always on high alert during traffic stops. The only thing that seems to spook them more is a user of PCP, or the unpredictability of domestic violence calls.

I'm not a gun-rights nut, but I like to target-shoot. I also respect the right of others to do what I don't care too... and this pisses me off.

 

[nismaratwork]

Let's not forget that some people are more at risk than others, with NY and Washington leading the list of targets. Also, people who fly often might be at a greater risk than people who've never flown. Anyone who lives near a seaport might be more at risk than someone who lives near a midwest corn field.

Lets also not forget that you could rephrase that as, many people are at far less risk, given their daily activities, population density, and their region. Of course, I live in a coastal city that would be at risk, yet I don't worry about a tornado, "The Big One", or malaria, or... you get the idea.

In the end, as mug says, we need to recognize that we're not all about to die, but that doesn't mean we should sit around and consider 1 in X acceptable losses. It's just as he says, and you provide a good point as well: allocate funds in part according to the magnitude of risk experienced. I hope that's already done, but suspect every congressman wants a big ol' slice of that pie for their district.

 

[alt]

re bolded: Really, that's the beginning and end of it, but people are willing to cash in liberty for the illusion of security. They'll kill themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and unsafe driving, but the mere off-chance that bad men will strike somehow is paralyzing. It isn't that the threat isn't real or shouldn't be addressed, but our priorities are ****ed, and it leads to these fine patriots of the FBI and Christians In Action, etc... to snoop and feel justified. The irony is that it seems to so often come down to needing human intelligence to convince any higher up the line, that any of the sigint should be heeded.

We live in a warped world.

Indeed we do !

My father told me that during WWII, the catch cry was "you must sacrifice security for liberty" - a noble sentiment indeed.

But now it's "you must sacrifice liberty for security".

 

[alt]

Really? I'd think that if I had something to hide that would have impacted my decision to invite them to monitor me substantially.

Obviously, it isn't an "invasion" of privacy if I invite it.

And abuse of power? I suppose there is a finite chance of an abuse. I weighed that chance against my desire to help the fight against terrorism and my desire to help won. I suppose then you fear government abuse more than you fear terrorism? No, I emailed them. Um, well, yes - that was my reason for doing it!

I've read this whole thread through (I think), and I can't see your reason for emailing FBI and asking them to monitor you and your phone calls. You must admit, that's not normal behaviour. What was your reason ?

 

[Galteeth]

I've read this whole thread through (I think), and I can't see your reason for emailing FBI and asking them to monitor you and your phone calls. You must admit, that's not normal behaviour. What was your reason ?

Such an action is actually detrimental to the war on terrorism. By asking the FBI to monitor one's activities, they pretty much have to, since that is a red flag. But if one has "nothing to hide", then such a person is wasting government resources that could be put to better use.

 

[alt]

Such an action is actually detrimental to the war on terrorism. By asking the FBI to monitor one's activities, they pretty much have to, since that is a red flag. But if one has "nothing to hide", then such a person is wasting government resources that could be put to better use.

That, amongst other things, is primarily what I would have thought. Which is why I asked Russ for his reasons for doing so, since he put it on a forum that that's what he did.

 

[russ_watters]

I've read this whole thread through (I think), and I can't see your reason for emailing FBI and asking them to monitor you and your phone calls. You must admit, that's not normal behaviour. What was your reason ?

Did you read the post I linked where I explained exactly what happened?

 

[russ_watters]

Such an action is actually detrimental to the war on terrorism. By asking the FBI to monitor one's activities, they pretty much have to, since that is a red flag. But if one has "nothing to hide", then such a person is wasting government resources that could be put to better use.

That's illogical: If one has to be certain that the tip they have will bear fruit, then people would never give tips!

 

[russ_watters]

I dropped this thread a few days ago...

I think you've confused non-invasive oversight (seat-belt is the exception, and should be challenged) with invasion of privacy. Oversight is pulling cadmium laced cups, invasion of privacy is searching my home for them, or making owning them a crime rather than SELLING THEM.

Even non-invasive oversight can go too far, but at least we're on the same page about the issue of

That's irritating about any ideology you argue with, when you yourself are doing the same, bound by another ideology.

You misunderstand: what irritates me is the hypocrisy in the ideology I'm arguing against. You won't find such hypocrisy in my positions and you agreed (on the wikileaks issue) that it exists on your side - even if not with you specifically - of this issue.

Your life is an open book? Give me all of your personal information then, and I promise I'll use it to protect you, and not for any negative act. Trust me.

C'mon, you know that's not the issue here. The issue here is privacy from the government. The government already has my SSN, bank acount and some credit card numbers. If they want my pin # and email password too, they can have them.

So could you please explain why privacy is so important to you? Even for something as simple as tapping your phone: what do you think the government is going to do with that information that is so worrisome for you?

OK, Christians In Action is, I now see... a real Christian group... when did that happen?! It was once a derogatory way of referring to the Central Intelligence Agency within some military branches and subunits. That should clarify the hyperbole...

Lol, too funny - I had no idea.

As for the rest, no, I'm not suggesting anything at all. I said EXACTLY what I meant, meant what I said and stand by it. Yes, social programs are the far greater expenditure, but that's not to say that sigint and analysis doesn't cost a fortune as well.

You clearly stated a double-standard/contradiction in my views where one does not exist. If you didn't recognize why before, now you should.

What irritates me about this issue is that conservatives like to believe they somehow are the only ones who want to be safe, or have a nation that can defend its interests. Conservatives like to pretend to hold a broader view, when really it's just about picking pet issues and pretending that's an ideology.

[shrug] I think the common quoting of Ben Franklin by liberals shows where they stand on the issue ("He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."). Not to mention that one would complain about the $8 billion FBI budget as if it were as big a fiscal problem as the $750 billion Social Security. And then there is this thread!

You haven't answer the question that is the crux of the issue yet, so I'll ask it again at the end: what is it about privacy that makes you so concerned about it? Or to be more specific, why would you be concerned about the FBI tapping your phone (for example)? Everyone on your side of the issue seems to take privacy as a self-evident need without ever articulating what the issue actually is.

 

[russ_watters]

It depends a lot on your government, and I'd add, how well they secure that information. I will say this however: WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

Such as?

Let me clarify: We don't all have criminal or fundamentally terrible behaviour to hide, but we all WANT to hide some things.

Such as?

Ooh, finally some exmples coming...

Times change, but databses and dossiers remain... what you don't care to hide now you may want to in the future...

Unlikely, unless my beliefs change. Hiding something because I may change my beliefs in the future is not a good reason.

...or maybe you just don't want the FBI to know that you can't get it up without medication,

Really? I'm talking about letting the government have my email password and tap my phone so they can catch a terrorist and you think I might care if they know if I can get it up? And you want to claim that liberals care about security? C'mon.

...or that you were an addict in your teens because they take the anonymous out of *A.

Well, we already agreed that criminals would have something to hide - that wasn't the issue.

Maybe you're a perfectly good guy, but also gay, and you feel that's your business alone or worse, it later becomes something considered criminal (as it was once).

Again, being worried about something that doesn't exist - particularly on an issue where the country is getting more liberal - is not taking the issue seriously.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is not a reasonable once, as much as I respect you personally, this argument doesn't work.

It works for me and your examples say pretty clearly to me that personal embarassment and highly speculative future changes in how government works are more imopratant than security. I wonder if the workers in the Sears Tower would have cared about the FBI knowing they're impotent if asked the day after 9/11?

Does this whole issue come down to liberals not being comfortable in their own skin? That would be teriffically ironic for a group that almost by definition championed exactly that in the '60s!

NOTE: The examples I gave are all pulled from whole cloth, with none representing personal issues or anyone else's issues.

Lol - in the context of the thread, that's pretty funny.
[Disclaimer: I can get it up.]

 

[russ_watters]

you think this:

and this:

are unrelated?

If you think they are related, then explain.

now, a couple of things. we may disagree about what constitutes public and private.

Very, very unlikely. I know where people draw the lines. The difference is simply I've invited the government to cross that line.

if you pay attention to what is happening with police arresting people for taping them...

Cops are human and a lot of humans have a problem with being watched, as we see in this thread. It seems to me that when people don't know where the line is, they think it is further away. Please understand, that's not me: I know where the line is and invite the FBI to cross it.

...and modern data collection on ones daily activities, especially by government agencies, might also be considered invasive and an infringement on ones privacy. and what about my medical records? i consider that private information, even though it does end up in some company's database. should the government be allowed to purchase access to the for the purposes of profiling? the trouble is, we are in one of those areas again where the founders could not have foreseen the level of monitoring that is possible with new technology. somehow, i don't think they would approve.

Again, I know where the lines are currently drawn. My question is: why are you worried about the government crossing them?

 

[russ_watters]

People are so scared of the one in a (million? 10 million? more?) of being killed by a terrorist that they sell their liberties for the illusion of safety. It's pathetic.

1. You're not getting how terrorism works. 9/11 didn't just kill a bunch of people, it also did major damage to the economy. It didn't just affect one in a million, it affected everyone.
2. You're not understanding how...or I should say that security works. There's no illusion here, nismaratwork: it works. And it has worked over the past 9 years.
3. It's not about fear, it's about responsibility. The government has the responsibility to protect it's citizens. And that sometimes means making a lot more effort to make us a little safer. The same logic applies to airplane safety. Saving those last few lives takes a lot of effort and costs a lot of money.

 

[JaredJames]

So could you please explain why privacy is so important to you? Even for something as simple as tapping your phone: what do you think the government is going to do with that information that is so worrisome for you?

When discussing the UK ID cards with some anti-ID nuts they kept giving one argument over and over - the government could use the information to frame you for something.

A load of BS. Let's face it, if the government wanted to frame you for something, the last thing they'd need is the ID cards (or whatever it is they're using to monitor you).

(I'm not saying it's the same reason people here hold.)

 

[russ_watters]

When discussing the UK ID cards with some anti-ID nuts they kept giving one argument over and over - the government could use the information to frame you for something.

A load of BS. Let's face it, if the government wanted to frame you for something, the last thing they'd need is the ID cards (or whatever it is they're using to monitor you).

(I'm not saying it's the same reason people here hold.)

I've always gotten the impression that fear of government spying was a nebulous/vague/undefined fear.

 

[JaredJames]

I've always gotten the impression that fear of government spying was a nebulous/vague/undefined fear.

I'll second that.

To fear the government, is to fear the people you put into power. I'm yet to hear a coherent argument that doesn't involve some form of fear mongering.

 

[nismaratwork]

Such as? Such as?

Ooh, finally some exmples coming...
Unlikely, unless my beliefs change. Hiding something because I may change my beliefs in the future is not a good reason. Really? I'm talking about letting the government have my email password and tap my phone so they can catch a terrorist and you think I might care if they know if I can get it up? And you want to claim that liberals care about security? C'mon.
Well, we already agreed that criminals would have something to hide - that wasn't the issue. Again, being worried about something that doesn't exist - particularly on an issue where the country is getting more liberal - is not taking the issue seriously. It works for me and your examples say pretty clearly to me that personal embarassment and highly speculative future changes in how government works are more imopratant than security. I wonder if the workers in the Sears Tower would have cared about the FBI knowing they're impotent if asked the day after 9/11?

Does this whole issue come down to liberals not being comfortable in their own skin? That would be teriffically ironic for a group that almost by definition championed exactly that in the '60s!

Lol - in the context of the thread, that's pretty funny.
[Disclaimer: I can get it up.]

Well, I'm not going to be cute and pretend that I want to share things I want to hide... it makes me get a small nosebleed just going down that logical spiral. As for the magnitude of the FBI budget, I have no problem with it... 8 billion... it's a big country with a lot of enemies foreign and domestic.

Now, I'm going to admit my own ideology here... I have NO logical argument to offer against your protests that the country is:

1.) Unlikely to radically change in a manner that renders my personal info dangerous.

I don't believe that your personal info can't be used in a "bad way" once archived however. You're right that the government CAN crack nearly every security measure I know of (they're welcome to wait until the universe becomes diffuse radiation to crack anything I've encrypted) and if they want to read my unsecured emails, they can.

The thing is Russ, email, phone conversations... tapping sounds so negative, you know what I mean? I think you'd say it's a very specific act that liberals use as a broad brush to paint all sigint. A tap to me, means that SOMEONE is listening on the other end, but when we talk about the NSA or FBI 'tapping' our communications, it's mostly computers doing the work. I don't care if every cent of my communications are filtered for flagged words and phrases, names, and then someone reviews those conversations. Even though, on its surface monitoring communications SEEMS invasive, in practice most people never have a human reading or listening to their banal crap.

So, here we have the chance that the next major terrorist attack will be planned over unsecured lines, or we keep getting lucky and our idiot enemies will fail to light their crotches and shoes properly. I'm sorry Russ, I realize that 9.11 was horrendous in terms of its human and economic impact, but you're not going to tell me that it compares to, again, entitlement programs, or the amount spent (read, for me, wasted) in Iraq... it's the end of the world.

We can't bet our economy on the hope of perfect security, which is impossible... rather we need to reasonably address the GAPING issues that led to 9.11, improve security... and then do what we can so that our economy can withstand attack.


NOW... if our government (USA to be clear) had a better track record with keeping their secrets SECRET... I'd feel differently. I KNOW people who don't steal, but waltz through that kind of personal information... and while there's no appreciable harm done, there could be. Has Pfc. Manning taught us nothing? I didn't expect a giant outcry of, "hell yeah I've got **** to hide," but if anyone here doesn't have something to hide (or THINKS they do), you're not human. You can argue that security is worth more than privacy, but that's not the real argument either.

Security which is of questionable benefit, (you can sound certain about 9 years of safety, but you don't know all of the causes) vs. privacy which is of questionable benefit. I don't know Russ... I prefer some of both, and I don't have a hard and fast rule as to what the right balance is. Right now, I feel like we've got it about right, but we're only ever some madman with a bomb, or a **** like Manning or Assange away from having the dirty laundry we're confident is ours alone being public.


An example if you'll humour me... Airlines... They have their back-scatter X-Ray scanners now, and I think we can all agree that assuming (and I do) that they're safe and effective, that's an acceptable sacrifice. I don't care if someone I'll never meet in a room somewhere in the airport sees my package, or that I'm sucking in my stomach a little. HOWEVER... when the first blurry non-porn of someone's kid is released because a TSA agent snuck in a camera to snap some shots of the screen they're watching, the public will BURN those machines. I think a few people, even kids being embarrassed in that way is worth avoiding another 9.11, but WOW do I find that taking such a position tends to endc is a screaming match. I don't WANT that to happen, but you get the idea...

note... the disclaimer wasn't referring to me lol... I just didn't want to insult someone inadvertently. Your potence is a throbbing tumescence in the online universe Russ, don't worry, but in the spirit of the thread how about sharing a picture of your erect penis as proof? Actually, I don't want to see that... let's instead go to court... you go to a federal judge and become aroused. I'll take the judge's word that you're able to achieve an erection without chemical aid, and you've only exposed yourself to the kind of government that could be looking at your info. If you're the kind of guy who says, "to hell with that", whips it out and shows us all how it works... I applaud you. I'm not that guy, and maybe it's because I'm worried that you have an inch on me, but I don't mind that kind of thing to be perfectly... frank. Anyway, I really believe that people have a right to privacy FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT, and if sacrificing some of that can't stop guys with PETN in their crotch, maybe it's better not to make that sacrifice at all.


P.S. CIA... It is funny isn't it? My brother was in Laos around the time that phrase came into being. He used to say they'd get to a given rendezvous point and be miles off because the intel was bad... "Christians In Action strikes again!," was the refrain... edited for the profanity you'd expect for soldiers in a jungle. The things they said about ARVN... now that was genuinely wrong!

 

[alt]

Did you read the post I linked where I explained exactly what happened?

If you mean the link in post #17 on this thread, I have read it now, and now understand your reasons.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'll second that.

To fear the government, is to fear the people you put into power. I'm yet to hear a coherent argument that doesn't involve some form of fear mongering.

justification of spying on americans is driven by fear-mongering

 

[JaredJames]

justification of spying on americans is driven by fear-mongering

Really?

My whole basis for monitoring is that I just don't care whether they do or don't do it. If they feel there is a need to monitor my phone calls, so be it. I just don't see it as something that affects me. I'm not giving any reasons for them to do it. I'm simply saying they can if they want.

Perhaps my use of "fear mongering" was a bit strong, but so far the arguments against generally involve misuse of the data gathered. Yes this is a problem, but it's something that we need to deal with, do everything we can to ensure it doesn't happen.

Regarding the "Has Pfc. Manning taught us nothing?" comment, of course it has. It's taught us that there isn't enough security around so called "classified" data. To me the basis for this argument is like saying "ooh, someone leaked something they shouldn't have, so from now on we use this to justify not keeping classified documents", instead of saying "we need to up the security around said data". Just because something goes wrong, doesn't mean we should stop doing it. It means we need to learn and improve.

but if anyone here doesn't have something to hide (or THINKS they do), you're not human.

Can we please stop this nonsense.

Like I've said before, so far as personal information goes there is little you can't get about me on the internet. When it comes to other details such as bank accounts, credit cards and other such details, the government can already access this data if required so I don't see "you must have something to hide" as valid (remember we're talking about the government knowing it) simply on the basis that it's all out there anyway.

Besides, I honestly don't care what anyone knows about me. Heck, even with my bank account details you couldn't do anything with them.

There is a difference between having something to hide when it comes to personal and legal grounds.

Personal information being known by the government doesn't affect you. So they know you can't get it up, what does that mean to you? Why does that affect you? Does it have an impact on your life? Hiding something personal is your own choice and the government knowing it isn't the same as the people in your life you're hiding it from finding out.

Whether or not you hide the fact you have broken the law is irrelevant. It is still illegal and you deserve to be punished for it.

Hiding the fact you are gay is not a legal issue, it is a personal choice. Whether or not the government knows this fact about you is irrelevant. It serves little purpose to them.
Hiding the fact you download 100 mp3's each day is a legal issue. The government knowing this is relevant.

 

[nismaratwork]

Really?

My whole basis for monitoring is that I just don't care whether they do or don't do it. If they feel there is a need to monitor my phone calls, so be it. I just don't see it as something that affects me. I'm not giving any reasons for them to do it. I'm simply saying they can if they want.

Perhaps my use of "fear mongering" was a bit strong, but so far the arguments against generally involve misuse of the data gathered. Yes this is a problem, but it's something that we need to deal with, do everything we can to ensure it doesn't happen.

Regarding the "Has Pfc. Manning taught us nothing?" comment, of course it has. It's taught us that there isn't enough security around so called "classified" data. To me the basis for this argument is like saying "ooh, someone leaked something they shouldn't have, so from now on we use this to justify not keeping classified documents", instead of saying "we need to up the security around said data". Just because something goes wrong, doesn't mean we should stop doing it. It means we need to learn and improve.Can we please stop this nonsense.

Like I've said before, so far as personal information goes there is little you can't get about me on the internet. When it comes to other details such as bank accounts, credit cards and other such details, the government can already access this data if required so I don't see "you must have something to hide" as valid (remember we're talking about the government knowing it) simply on the basis that it's all out there anyway.

Besides, I honestly don't care what anyone knows about me. Heck, even with my bank account details you couldn't do anything with them.

There is a difference between having something to hide when it comes to personal and legal grounds.

Personal information being known by the government doesn't affect you. So they know you can't get it up, what does that mean to you? Why does that affect you? Does it have an impact on your life? Hiding something personal is your own choice and the government knowing it isn't the same as the people in your life you're hiding it from finding out.

Whether or not you hide the fact you have broken the law is irrelevant. It is still illegal and you deserve to be punished for it.

Hiding the fact you are gay is not a legal issue, it is a personal choice. Whether or not the government knows this fact about you is irrelevant. It serves little purpose to them.
Hiding the fact you download 100 mp3's each day is a legal issue. The government knowing this is relevant.

Let me point out a single (not the only) error in your post. It's not a bad thing, and it's a common misconception. Forget a gem like your entire bank account info, with which someone with NO COMPUTER experience... just some con-man... could clean you out. People who know full well that they don't have a flatscreen TV on layaway still worry about their credit because destroying it through a mistake or fraud is EASY... fixing it... not so much. Let's say that I know everything I need to call your bank's customer service, well... now I can work the details I need into the conversation. Maybe others will doubt I'm you, but will they still feel the same way if I know your SSN and the previous day's bank balance, your credit rating, family structure, job, some of your friends... you get the idea.

That is ONE, very small (in its genesis) misconception you have. HOWEVER... if you'd like to see what can be done with personal info, I make you the same offer I made Russ, but I take no responsibility for what follows, and in your case I refuse to be personally involved... guilt is a b***h.

P.S. The FBI can't be bothered with pirates... AFAIK the industry used to police that. The FBI worries about terrorism and pedophiles, meth cooks circulating recipes and the like. If the FBI were on the issue of piracy at the consumer level (not the group level), there would be a LOOOOOOOT of people in jail for piracy.

EDIT: Hiding that you're gay is a legal REQUIREMENT if you're gay, as of this writing in the US military. DADT should be considered to be in effect according to Sec. Gates until final removal of the policy... and those are turned into orders.

I'm sorry, we went from a cold-war era when the FBI did muscle its way into your life, then out, then into a hippy period when we find they were also tracked... then vietnam and that tracking. I've also seen how radically and completely our government can change (Clinton->Bush W.->Obama)... which according to some is a move from socialism, to nazism, to marxism. My point is that betting on the policies of the FBI, or even our elected officials is iffy... I'd rather be private. As the USSC agrees, I'll take it. We're within 100 years of gay people having to hide to live (ignoring gay-bashing NOW), the Red MENACE, and so much more. Am I supposed to be pleased that because I'm not a criminal I have little to worry about, or should I do what people have since they realized the fig leaf did a marvelous job hiding their crotches and keep my privacy where I choose? I'm sorry that's not good enough for god or country, but from personal experience I'll take that too.

 

[nismaratwork]

Regarding the "Has Pfc. Manning taught us nothing?" comment, of course it has. It's taught us that there isn't enough security around so called "classified" data. To me the basis for this argument is like saying "ooh, someone leaked something they shouldn't have, so from now on we use this to justify not keeping classified documents", instead of saying "we need to up the security around said data". <snip>[/B]

Not my point at all, not at all! My points:

A fool and a traitor who didn't NEED that access not only had it, but had it freely in every sense. Data that is so important our government believes that people have or will die as a result was made freely available to half a million people.

A fool and a traitor gave that information to a foreign/non-national entity for publication.

Our security, IN WAR, regarding 2 wars, that was thought to be secure by MOST people... was not.

Based on this recent safe-guarding of its own Secret and NF info I'm supposed to be filled with a sense of faith and trust? Ha! No, I'm not saying the lesson is that documents shouldn't be kept... it's that we shouldn't expect them to stay secret... oh, and we need security not a wall of swiss-cheese.

 

[JaredJames]

Let me point out a single (not the only) error in your post. It's not a bad thing, and it's a common misconception. Forget a gem like your entire bank account info, with which someone with NO COMPUTER experience... just some con-man... could clean you out. People who know full well that they don't have a flatscreen TV on layaway still worry about their credit because destroying it through a mistake or fraud is EASY... fixing it... not so much. Let's say that I know everything I need to call your bank's customer service, well... now I can work the details I need into the conversation. Maybe others will doubt I'm you, but will they still feel the same way if I know your SSN and the previous day's bank balance, your credit rating, family structure, job, some of your friends... you get the idea.

That is ONE, very small (in its genesis) misconception you have. HOWEVER... if you'd like to see what can be done with personal info, I make you the same offer I made Russ, but I take no responsibility for what follows, and in your case I refuse to be personally involved... guilt is a b***h.

The reason I made the statement is simple. If my credit report changes in any way, I'm notified. Any (and I mean any) transaction on my bank account is flagged to me because I have to receive a phone call and enter a confirmation code (it's a tad annoying to say the least, but it means no money can leave my account without me giving it the go ahead).

You could certainly try and clean me out, you may even get a few loan applications through, but the moment they check my credit rating I'm informed and the credit scoring company stop the application if I don't confirm it.

So you can't get money out of my account, you can't get money in my name, which means that having my identity is only good if you want to phone up Virgin Media and cancel my internet service.

P.S. The FBI can't be bothered with pirates... AFAIK the industry used to police that. The FBI worries about terrorism and pedophiles, meth cooks circulating recipes and the like. If the FBI were on the issue of piracy at the consumer level (not the group level), there would be a LOOOOOOOT of people in jail for piracy.

It was an example of breaking the law (it was 4am and creativity wasn't my forte).

EDIT: Hiding that you're gay is a legal REQUIREMENT if you're gay, as of this writing in the US military. DADT should be considered to be in effect according to Sec. Gates until final removal of the policy... and those are turned into orders.

It's gone now, the bill was signed if I watched correctly on TV (or has it lied to me again? Who was that impersonating Obama? Dammit they've stolen his ID!). So this isn't relevant.

I'm sorry, we went from a cold-war era when the FBI did muscle its way into your life, then out, then into a hippy period when we find they were also tracked... then vietnam and that tracking. I've also seen how radically and completely our government can change (Clinton->Bush W.->Obama)... which according to some is a move from socialism, to nazism, to marxism. My point is that betting on the policies of the FBI, or even our elected officials is iffy... I'd rather be private. As the USSC agrees, I'll take it.

I disagree, but that's a different argument.

We're within 100 years of gay people having to hide to live (ignoring gay-bashing NOW), the Red MENACE, and so much more.

Let's not make things up. We're in a society taking more and more steps to make gay people have equal standing (which I support) so I see no basis for this claim.

Am I supposed to be pleased that because I'm not a criminal I have little to worry about, or should I do what people have since they realized the fig leaf did a marvelous job hiding their crotches and keep my privacy where I choose? I'm sorry that's not good enough for god or country, but from personal experience I'll take that too.

You are not a criminal, therefore you have no reason to fear your government.
I think we need to distinguish between public decency and 'having something to hide'.

 

[JaredJames]

A fool and a traitor who didn't NEED that access not only had it, but had it freely in every sense. Data that is so important our government believes that people have or will die as a result was made freely available to half a million people.

This tells me there is a flaw in the system, which needs to be addressed. Security needs to be improved in much the same ways they demand of private companies. As I said before, just because it goes wrong doesn't mean it's a valid reason to stop doing everything of the sort (data collecting/holding). You improve the system, make some changes and then go again. It's only when a flaw is highlighted that we can take steps to fix it. Standard debugging.

A fool and a traitor gave that information to a foreign/non-national entity for publication.

As point 1.

Our security, IN WAR, regarding 2 wars, that was thought to be secure by MOST people... was not.

As point 1.

Based on this recent safe-guarding of its own Secret and NF info I'm supposed to be filled with a sense of faith and trust? Ha! No, I'm not saying the lesson is that documents shouldn't be kept... it's that we shouldn't expect them to stay secret... oh, and we need security not a wall of swiss-cheese.

I feel better, knowing that they have had a flaw found and have done something about it* than if no flaw is found at all. We take a problem and fix it, not use it as the basis to stop all similar applications.

Yes the government has flaws, yes we need to fix them.

(* if they do nothing then I get a bit uneasy)

 

[nismaratwork]

The reason I made the statement is simple. If my credit report changes in any way, I'm notified. Any (and I mean any) transaction on my bank account is flagged to me because I have to receive a phone call and enter a confirmation code (it's a tad annoying to say the least, but it means no money can leave my account without me giving it the go ahead).

You could certainly try and clean me out, you may even get a few loan applications through, but the moment they check my credit rating I'm informed and the credit scoring company stop the application if I don't confirm it.

So you can't get money out of my account, you can't get money in my name, which means that having my identity is only good if you want to phone up Virgin Media and cancel my internet service.



It was an example of breaking the law (it was 4am and creativity wasn't my forte).


It's gone now, the bill was signed if I watched correctly on TV (or has it lied to me again? Who was that impersonating Obama? Dammit they've stolen his ID!). So this isn't relevant.


I disagree, but that's a different argument.


Let's not make things up. We're in a society taking more and more steps to make gay people have equal standing (which I support) so I see no basis for this claim.


You are not a criminal, therefore you have no reason to fear your government.
I think we need to distinguish between public decency and 'having something to hide'.

You're not wrong here... Obama DID repeal the DADT, but part of the whole deal is that the military has to go another round proving they've taken the proper unit-cohesion measures, and educational measures necessary. I believe they have... 6 months?... I think. In the meantime, Gates (SecDef) has said to act as though it were still in place, although I assume this doesn't include any further expulsions.

The second, relates to your bank account. I've never stolen from someone, on or offline, but I sure as hell know how to do it. The heroin addict who goes through your trash might make a few purchases until your bank calls you... someone more interested in actually taking over your identity doesn't. Like a thief with the big score in mind... actually they ARE thieves with the big score in mind... would it make more sense to take the first bit of info and just run it out? Nah... you wait, you use it to get more info, and when you have enough get what you planned you go in. USUALLY that has nothing to do with emptying random bank accounts, but I'm not going to get into a tutorial of "how to" electronic fraud and other crimes. As I said, you're smart, you can see where this is going. You don't have to believe me, but that call to or from Virgin is just going to be very depressing.

Besides, maybe I look at your account and realize that you're a harder target than I want to hit, but I can use it to get to your family members who are softer, or trade them as a package for a larger number of lower-reward-lower-risk targets. This is an entire economy on Irc and other haunts... it's ugly, I hate it, and it's part of what drove me away from networking a long time ago, but there it is. The people who want your info are often the type who want to simply hurt you for fun, or abuse you professionally for money or access elsewhere.

I agree that gay people are getting more rights, and subject to less violence. This means that my example of gay was just that... an example... I don't pretend to know what human quality will next be vilified in that fashion, but I'd be shocked if something doesn't take its place. Let's run this however: You're gay, you work at ARAMCO, and they decide that to keep your lifestyle from even POTENTIALLY offending a random Saudi prince, you should stay state-side, and you lose a job without ever knowing you could have had it. You can't look at a society you're immersed in and pretend to know what its next object of hatred or fear will be, but I have great faith that there will be one.

Your last point... when I say "something to hide", I mean: I (you, russ, everyone) has SECRETS... something to hide, to keep hidden. Hell man, maybe it's just that you suck you set fires, russ wets the bed and I torture small animals, and together we are, THE MACDONALD'S TRIAD... TRIAD... Trio... stuff! It's an obscure reference, but I like it... anyway... I don't mean that everyone is a criminal or worse, but that to keep secrets is a human imperative. We kill each other over secrets far less potentially damaging than our sexual orientation, financial situation, and more... even if it's stupid.

P.S. In the spirit of this thread:
-Russ has a bladder like a champion and never even wet his diaper.
-I LOVE animals and never so much as pet a cat against the fur-grain.
-Jared is a firefighter.

"c'est pas une pipe"

 

[nismaratwork]

This tells me there is a flaw in the system, which needs to be addressed. Security needs to be improved in much the same ways they demand of private companies. As I said before, just because it goes wrong doesn't mean it's a valid reason to stop doing everything of the sort (data collecting/holding). You improve the system, make some changes and then go again. It's only when a flaw is highlighted that we can take steps to fix it. Standard debugging.

I'd agree, but these flaws aren't news. People have been screaming about all things electronic security re our government for years... this is standard government debugging: wait for a catastrophe then find a little boy to stick his finger in the dike.

As point 1.


As point 1.

Likewise.

I feel better, knowing that they have had a flaw found and have done something about it* than if no flaw is found at all. We take a problem and fix it, not use it as the basis to stop all similar applications.

I'd have felt better if this was some hack, not a bureaupathology relating to SIPRnet, the DoD in general and its dealings with Foggy Bottom in particular.

Yes the government has flaws, yes we need to fix them.

(* if they do nothing then I get a bit uneasy)

Agreed, and I am uneasy.

 

[JaredJames]

The second, relates to your bank account. I've never stolen from someone, on or offline, but I sure as hell know how to do it. The heroin addict who goes through your trash might make a few purchases until your bank calls you... someone more interested in actually taking over your identity doesn't. Like a thief with the big score in mind... actually they ARE thieves with the big score in mind... would it make more sense to take the first bit of info and just run it out? Nah... you wait, you use it to get more info, and when you have enough get what you planned you go in. USUALLY that has nothing to do with emptying random bank accounts, but I'm not going to get into a tutorial of "how to" electronic fraud and other crimes. As I said, you're smart, you can see where this is going. You don't have to believe me, but that call to or from Virgin is just going to be very depressing.

Besides, maybe I look at your account and realize that you're a harder target than I want to hit, but I can use it to get to your family members who are softer, or trade them as a package for a larger number of lower-reward-lower-risk targets. This is an entire economy on Irc and other haunts... it's ugly, I hate it, and it's part of what drove me away from networking a long time ago, but there it is. The people who want your info are often the type who want to simply hurt you for fun, or abuse you professionally for money or access elsewhere.

There's a reason I take severe measures, the details of which aren't relevant here (EDIT: I just realized how this looks and suffice to say I'm not a fraudster). However, even with a copy of my card and PIN number you'd only get away with one (small) amount of cash before it was flagged to me.
So far as identity fraud goes, you can try but it won't go too far. Sure you can get my details, phone up and cancel various contracts I have, but aside from that, getting money in my name won't happen (assuming it involves some form of check, which pretty much everything does now anyway).

My family would be extremely easy targets, to the point my grandfather was a subject of credit card fraud to the tune of £2000. The company flagged it and dealt with it though. And all this despite my constant warnings of the threat.

Lets run this however: You're gay, you work at ARAMCO, and they decide that to keep your lifestyle from even POTENTIALLY offending a random Saudi prince, you should stay state-side, and you lose a job without ever knowing you could have had it. You can't look at a society you're immersed in and pretend to know what its next object of hatred or fear will be, but I have great faith that there will be one.

I understand your point, however this is an issue with another country and as with anything involving international issues you must abide by those countries laws, or at least be mindful of them. I think the company has every right to protect its own image.

Your last point... when I say "something to hide", I mean: I (you, russ, everyone) has SECRETS... something to hide, to keep hidden. Hell man, maybe it's just that you suck you set fires, russ wets the bed and I torture small animals, and together we are, THE MACDONALD'S TRIAD... TRIAD... Trio... stuff! It's an obscure reference, but I like it... anyway... I don't mean that everyone is a criminal or worse, but that to keep secrets is a human imperative. We kill each other over secrets far less potentially damaging than our sexual orientation, financial situation, and more... even if it's stupid.

Yes, but how does the government knowing russ wets himself damage him or have any impact on him? Me setting fires is a crime and you torturing animals is a crime and something they need to deal with.
I know people have secrets and may have things they may want to keep hidden, but in the context of this thread it is very much about legality and the government monitoring for that reason. As such, details like bed wetting are truly irrelevant and of no interest to them (unless some serial killer falls asleep halfway through and p*sses the bed before leaving - in which case, russ, you're going down!).

P.S. In the spirit of this thread:
-Russ has a bladder like a champion and never even wet his diaper.
-I LOVE animals and never so much as pet a cat against the fur-grain.
-Jared is a firefighter.

"c'est pas une pipe"

Cheers mate, drink all over keyboard and my cat (he's annoyed at you now).

 

[nismaratwork]

There's a reason I take severe measures, the details of which aren't relevant here. However, even with a copy of my card and PIN number you'd only get away with one (small) amount of cash before it was flagged to me.
So far as identity fraud goes, you can try but it won't go too far. Sure you can get my details, phone up and cancel various contracts I have, but aside from that, getting money in my name won't happen (assuming it involves some form of check, which pretty much everything does now anyway).I understand your point, however this is an issue with another country and as with anything involving international issues you must abide by those countries laws, or at least be mindful of them. I think the company has every right to protect its own image.Yes, but how does the government knowing russ wets himself damage him or have any impact on him? Me setting fires is a crime and you torturing animals is a crime and something they need to deal with.
I know people have secrets and may have things they may want to keep hidden, but in the context of this thread it is very much about legality and the government monitoring for that reason. As such, details like bed wetting are truly irrelevant and of no interest to them (unless some serial killer falls asleep halfway through and p*sses the bed before leaving - in which case, russ, you're going down!).
Cheers mate, drink all over keyboard and my cat (he's annoyed at you now).

There's no harm in the gov knowing that russ wets himself, and your fire-starting could be recreational and harmless. My animal torturing should get me shot, but putting that aside, I brought it up specifically as it relates to the Macdonald Triad... personally I hope the government DOES screen for fire starters and animal killers. You might not know what that is, and I might conclude that it's just an interesting coincidence for now, but a prospective employer might be less educated, or improperly educated. Clearly you are familiar with the triad, but not overly familiar... which is usual for people. I'm also using a pretty "out there" example...

Aramco is a US company that does business in Saudi Arabia. My point is that even seemingly distant sensibilities that only your boss is concerned about can have an impact. You don't have to have a reasonable prejudice to act on it, or a reasonable fear... that goes for bosses, friends, and people who work for the government.

Finally... you are clearly more security minded than most people or companies, a fact of which you seem to be aware. I maintain that given an attempt to use your information in ways that don't involve stealing money from your account is easy, but this is getting too close to your security and my desire not to teach criminal behaviour. I'll concede that you personally are willing and able to take measures that protect one aspect of your life in a way that few others do. This makes you, if not an overly difficult target, certainly an EXTREMELY unpalatable one in a world full of taste snacks. As it is for Apple and their relationship to viruses, that's a very safe place to be. I wish we could get into more detail, but I don't see how it's feasible in this setting.

P.S. Cheers to you as well, and my apologies to your cat. I'm sure he's both handsome and adorable, while maintain8ing the kind of feline dignity humans have come to expect from our fuzzy buddies.