Slashdot Mirror


Using Your Privacy Against You

guttentag writes: "Christian Science Monitor Reporter Warren Richey suspects he may have stumbled onto a credit card fraud ring that uses Internet merchants to quietly funnel night-vision rifle scopes to Middle Eastern terrorists and privacy policies to cover their tracks. Even if these are isolated incidents, it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."

279 comments

  1. Also a hammer... by sofist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can use it for your work or you can hit your self on your fingers with it, if you are not careful.

    1. Re:Also a hammer... by mskfisher · · Score: 2

      This is more like someone taking another hammer and hitting you in the head with it.
      These merchants will suffer as much as the rest of us if the fraudulently-acquired goods are used against, say, the USA.
      Everybody loses when terrorism's involved.

      --
      0x0D 0x0A
    2. Re:Also a hammer... by Ashyukun · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there is probably a reasoanble chance that the merchants won't suffer... they probably aren't US based, and the demand for those goods will only likely increase if tensions do.

  2. Where are we heading to? by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yesterday: Open Source development might make it easier for terrorists to break into systems.

    Today: Credit cards might make us pay for terrorist actions.

    Tomorrow: Windows might actually be an act of terror. Umm.. Nah, that wouldn't be news. We knew that all along.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Where are we heading to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no... tomorrow we'll be getting "why closed source software like windows is a safter choice"; along with a huge ad from Micro$oft.

      =D

    2. Re:Where are we heading to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pivacy is meant to ensure freedom, not safety.

  3. You don't say... by ebbomega · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can we please moderate the whole story?

    If I had the points I'd be giving it Flamebait with all five points....

    Jesus Christ. Yes, it's true that privacy helps criminals do crimes, but it's not like I'm going to install a camera in my bedroom so that the police know in case a crime happens to occur within the bounds of my room.

    I know of a similar group that had the general mantra that Security compromises Freedom, and quite frankly The Party in 1984 scared me more than two liner jets flying into the World Trade Center ever did.

    Point of the matter is the only way to ensure stuff doesn't get smuggled to the Enemies of State is to keep your eyes on the entire populous 24 hours a day. Unfortunately, then we forfeit our general human decency of free will.

    Honestly, every person who is capable thereof has a right to commit a crime. They also have a right to face the consequences of that crime. And that is what a lot of these security-mongers don't seem to understand.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we SHOULD go out and kill people and break every law in the book. What I'm saying is that with our free will we should be perfectly well allowed to do it to our capabilities and face the consequences. Me, personally, I don't think I'd want to go to jail, so as a result I won't do any crimes that would get me there. But there are crimes I break. I smoke Marijuana, I drive above the speed limit and I serve alcohol to minors (not all at the same time, mind you...). But I'm well aware of the consequences and I feel it is my right to break those laws, just as it is the government's right to punish me for doing so.

    --
    Karma: Non-Heinous
    1. Re:You don't say... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      onestly, every person who is capable thereof has a right to commit a crime. They also have a right to face the consequences of that crime.

      Nobody in your family has ever been a victim of a crime, right?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:You don't say... by BitHive · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was with you until you said:

      it is the government's right to punish me for [breaking certain laws]
      Why should the government have the right to punish you for smoking pot? I won't go into my rant against laws designed to protect us from ourselves, but driving excessively above the speed limit, serving alcohol to minors, (and not investigating shipment of arms to hostile countries, fraudulent shipments at that) potentially and needlessly endanger others, and this is where scrutiny of law is useful. You can get where you're going without speeding, minors can get their own damn booze :), and everyone (IMHO) can do without night-vision rifle scopes.
    3. Re:You don't say... by ebbomega · · Score: 2

      Whatever... Those were just examples of laws I happen to break, because, quite frankly, a LOT of people break laws... This wasn't intended to be a debate on Pot legalisation or anything like that... The point was more that Laws exist for a reason, and that is to punish people who take liberties with their rights.

      Laws are rules. Break the rules, face the consequences, whether it be the long arm of the law, Karma, a mellow high or whatever.

      --
      Karma: Non-Heinous
    4. Re:You don't say... by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What exactly is wrong with minors drinking?

      Here in Italy there is NO drinking age, but I don't see 8 year olds boozing it up... in general people tend to drink a little more responsibly (there are still problems). I've never seen parties with kids getting torn up like they do in the states, illegality makes it much more "cool" than any advertising ever will.

      It would probably be better to have a responsible adult give some kids a couple of beers, than letting them go out and share a bottle of liquor they stole.

      Of course, that's just my take on it.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    5. Re:You don't say... by ebbomega · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Family? Not of the top of my head. But try my close friend Craig who was dead in a gutter with the word "FAGGOT" carved into his chest.

      Just because someone becomes in contact with a crime doesn't mean that they demand the release of basic human free will...

      --
      Karma: Non-Heinous
    6. Re:You don't say... by ebbomega · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well, now that we're varying heavily off topic...

      It's been clinically proven that drinking before a certain level of body development can cause developmental disorders, and that stage usually occurs around age 19... the decision of the age of majority is pretty arbitrary but rarely goes below that level for those reasons... same reason cigarettes are bad to give to kids.

      But based on those reasons, I'd sooner make it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink than a kid.

      --
      Karma: Non-Heinous
    7. Re:You don't say... by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Ok, but how much drinking?

      Sorry, I'm going to drag it even further off topic...

      For me, the benefit of allowing a 16 year old a couple of beers, if it's in the presence of a responsible adult, far outweighs the damage done by letting them experiment on their own.

      As for pregnant women,they shouldn't be drinking, but I doubt making it illegal would change anything.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    8. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spain has recently upped it's age limit on booze to 18 - cause loadsa kiddies were getting pissed up at big street parties every weekend. That wouldn't of happened under Franco!!

      Forget booze @ pregnant women...
      what about the daftie in our local disco/club (delete depending on age) who gubbed an E, despite being a) pregnant b) an Epileptic.

      Quelle suprise - she had an attack...

      (BTW i've been taking E for 13 Yrs so don't tell ME how safe it is/isn't...)

    9. Re:You don't say... by ozbon · · Score: 1

      All things considered, I found it quite amusing that your first response was "Jesus Christ!" considering it's some Christian Science paper....

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    10. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian Science. Two words that go together as well as "military" and "intelligence" does.

    11. Re:You don't say... by ThePilgrim · · Score: 2

      The Goverment, any government, should be geven the right to protect others from me; and the responcibility to protect me from others.

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    12. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's YOUR responsibility not to hurt others, and it is the others' responsibility not to hurt you.

    13. Re:You don't say... by peddrenth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. It's not a story about privacy policies, it's a story about credit-card fraud, and how one large credit card handler is destroying evidence even where there is clear proof of fraud.

      Their 'privacy' policy is irrelevant, they're laundering money for terrorists and destroying evidence. What does this have to do with privacy?

      Read the story, people

    14. Re:You don't say... by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Nice turn of phrase, but what the hell does it mean?

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    15. Re:You don't say... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      BTW if the women was a heavy drinker before getting pregant, most doctors say its safe for them to have one small drink daily. Its a small enough amount that it causes no harm to the baby, while stress of the mother can cause more harm. Obviously the mother should work towards quitting. But anyways.

    16. Re:You don't say... by brsmith4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of people simply do not understand why pot is illegal. Its not because of its effect on you or anything else. These days, its more because of the people that it comes from. By buying and using it, you are supporting these third-world drug cartels (or some d00d that grows the stuff under some special lights in a garage) that engage in some very risky business. The government dug themselves a hole on this one. They could have easily legalized the drug and then FDA tested, approved, and placed special guidlines on its manufacture. Legalizing pot would also put the substance in more accessable reach to minors. I don't mind an adult, chilling at home, lighting up a joint and having a good time. Its not something I would do. However, it is the last thing I would want to see in the hands of a 12, 13 year old child (that seems to be a prime age for the beginnings of cigarette smoking). Just a thought.

    17. Re:You don't say... by hrieke · · Score: 2

      Jesus Christ. Yes, it's true that privacy helps criminals do crimes, but it's not like I'm going to install a camera in my bedroom so that the police know in case a crime happens to occur within the bounds of my room.

      Well every once in a while we get a super genuis like R. Kelly who did.

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    18. Re:You don't say... by ozbon · · Score: 1

      And "fresh" "frozen"

      "Friendly" "Fire"

      and my personal favourite "Tasty" "McDonalds"

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    19. Re:You don't say... by Masa · · Score: 1
      So, basically you are saying that it is OK to commit a crime and it is generally wrong to try to limit those attempts?

      Isn't it better to try to prevent bad things happening rather than to trust that people will think what would be right or wrong?

      We are living in a cruel, cold world, you know. There is people out there who are willing to commit crimes without worrying consequences.

    20. Re:You don't say... by bankman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a very sensitive topic:

      Prohibition doesn't work. Never has, never will.

      I would prefer to get my pot from a pharmacist, who in turn, got it from a government controlled farm. Why? Simply because I could be sure that I am getting a quality product and the government could have a pretty high increase in tax income, instead of spending money on catching and prosecuting users and small-time traffickers. Organized crime (yes, and terrorist groups, rogue nations etc. think of the political lobbying that is possible right now...) wouldn't get its share, and I would be happy about it.

      Just because something is legalized doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to control accessability for minors. You could argue in fact that it is _now_ impossible to control the availability to minors, because the government doesn't control anything regarding to pot. I think it is even more dangerous to have it prohibited: It is proven that pot is not an entry drug (i.e. users will eventually move on to stronger drugs like cocaine etc.) medically, but it is one sociologically. Think about it, the government says that marijuana is dangerous, the average kid sees his or her friends smoking it, and they don't die instantly because of it. Instead it makes them feel good. He or she decides to try it, eventually wants to buy it as well. Where to get it? From your friendly (uncontrolled) neighboorhood dealer, who also happens to be engaged in hard drug traffiicking. Well, this guy (mostly guys in this business) offers something stronger. Our drug apprentice thinks that he was fed lies about drugs before and might just as well try something else

      It is this disinformation.strategy that is a lot more dangerous than pot can ever be. Look at the Netherlands for example, where pot is legal to own (in small quantities) and where the number of first-time drug users (and drug related deaths) is declining. AFAIK, the Netherlands is the only country in the EU (and probably world-wide) where this is the case.

      --
      I feel so sig.
    21. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't make shit up. you had a decent argument before you started making up sob stories to reinforce your points.

    22. Re:You don't say... by Lisias · · Score: 0
      Honestly, every person who is capable thereof has a right to commit a crime. They also have a right to face the consequences of that crime.
      IMHO for each right, we have a matching duty or responsability.

      This does not contradict you, only complements your concept.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    23. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the right of the People to punish those who commit crimes.

      The Govt. has a mandate from the People to protect, serve, uphold, enforce any laws which are enacted.

      So, yes, the Govt. does have the right to punish wrongdoers.

      What you take offence at is that there are some laws which you feel protect nothing. Your example of it being illegal to smoke pot, for one. This harms nobody but the person stupid enough to put toxic chemicals into their body.

      However, I`m sure you would agree that the Govt. has a right, and indeed a responsibility, to punish someone who walks into a kindergarten and dispatches 20 young children to the hereafter.

      Dont base your opinions on one single issue.

    24. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children can easily buy marijuana and smoke it. At least marijuana is unlikely to kill them. Children can also easily buy heroin, crack, and ecstacy, all of which can easily kill them. I'd much rather that the kids were smoking dope (which is JUST A PLANT) than injecting heroin or smoking crack or cigarettes or even drinking alcohol.

      But you're right about marijuana sales giving money to criminals who use it to fund other criminal activity and to bribe and corrupt police and politicians. The obvious way to avoid this is to legalize growing marijuana, or even better, make it compulsory. Then there wouldn't be any profit in it, because it's JUST A PLANT. And it says in the Bible that you are allowed to have as much marijuana as you want.

    25. Re:You don't say... by Lisias · · Score: 0
      Nobody in your family has ever been a victim of a crime, right?
      I will reply to you with another question:

      When you was a child, did you ever got your lunch stealed by someone in school?

      What do you did? Applied to the Mayor for a law to ban the lunch time?

      It's a silly question, but think about... Because some people are victims, all the others must be suspects? Doesn't make sense just hunt the criminals and leave innocent people alone?
      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    26. Re:You don't say... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      But there are crimes I break. I smoke Marijuana, I drive above the speed limit and I serve alcohol to minors (not all at the same time, mind you...). But I'm well aware of the consequences and I feel it is my right to break those laws, just as it is the government's right to punish me for doing so.

      Although i would argue that the gov't DOESNT have the right to punish you, since those laws violate your rights or the rights of others. (Speeding != dangerous driving, necessarly. Its only a contributating factor).

    27. Re:You don't say... by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was a victim of a drunk driver.

      I live in California, so it is against the law.

      I have permenant nerve damage as a result of this incident.

      The basic of the story was that I was in the cross walk and I was hit. The girl I was walking with lost her ability to breed.

      Just because I was a victim does not mean I want stricted rules, infact quite the opposite.

      A loss of liberty is not a straight across trade for safety.
      Most of the time you do not gain physical security, rather you think you gain mental security as a result of simple psychological tricks.

      So as a victim of crime, with family and friends also victims, I feel I have the right to say this: I do not need to be a victim to have a point of view.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    28. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I think the point here is choosing between

      a) Let the kid have a gew drinks responsibly (or perhaps have a gradiated system like we used to -- 16 year olds can get beer, but its weak as shit)

      b) 16 year olds aquire a bunch of really hard liquor one way or another and get completely plastered while unsupervised, and do really bad things (like go driving, which has happened several times in my area with kids who don't even have their license yet)

      Of course it isn't q

    29. Re:You don't say... by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      "I feel it is my right to break those laws, just as it is the government's right to punish me for doing so. "

      Presumably you have no objections to the idea of me excersising my right to break the law by murdering you, then? Allowing that the government then has the right to punish me for doing so.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    30. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FARKER! I somehow accidentally hit tab and space, cause it to jump to submit and submit.
      So anyway.
      Since NO kids in the united states wait until 21 to start drinking(the ones who haven't started by then never do), all we're doing is ensuring that they don't learn to drink responsibly. The really responsible drinkers I know are the ones whose parents have been letting them drink casually for a while. Yet those parents could be arrested for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" and crap like that, just for doing a better job of raising their kid within the confines of their own home. Thats some ridiculous shit ain't it?

    31. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) where it comes from is a ridiculous reason. If it was legal, then pot would be made in the USA to be sold in the USA. The college kids downstairs in my apartment got slapped with some fines for having a marijuana plant. It's not like they can't grow, it's just prohibition.

      b) the entire reason kids smoke is to look more grown-up. Why do they think it makes them look more grown-up? because it's illegal for kids to do it, legal for grown-ups to do it.

      As another post said, prohibition simply doesn't work. The amount of rights we would have to get up to effectively stop the distribution of ANY substance, is far from worth it. Better to educate, and let the idiots who want to kill themselves with drugs do the Darwin thing for our species.

    32. Re:You don't say... by debrain · · Score: 2

      The state has the right of force of law, the only acceptable form of violent force. Hence, force as applied by the state, defines all rights of itself and citizens. As such, their right to punish is a direct consequence of their monopoly on force (of law) and the inability to oppose said force (short of riots).

    33. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!
      Easier to control access to minors?
      My girlfriend and I were at a fast food restaraunt and an older lady (maybe 35) who had just moved in from out of state came and asked us if we could point her to a drug dealer she could get pot from.

      why is that?
      because kids have even easier access to drugs than adults in our current black market. I'm not sure exactly why...perhaps because it's easier to convince kids to do stupid things, or perhaps because kids have larger circles of friends to share with, or perhaps just because most adults are either doing it already, or never going to start.

      But the point remains. Almost any high school kid in America could point you to a drug dealer. Not nearly as many adults could. So "do it for the children" is actually a damn good reason to end prohibition 2.

    34. Re:You don't say... by ThePilgrim · · Score: 2

      It means that I havent got the foggiest idea what I'm talking about :-)

      OTOH
      It means that I give up some of my fredome, ie the fredome to take a gun and shoot who the hell I want, to the government as they have the right to protect the population at large.

      How ever in exercising that right the Government also has the responcibility of stopping other people from being able to do the same to me.

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    35. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.
      We tell people what is right and wrong, and enforce it after they commit crimes. It's a bad idea to start treating every citizen like a criminal just because they *might* commit a crime. Worse yet to start arresting people who didn't commit any crime (yet, but we thought they might).

      You see commercials for that silly tom cruise movie where they go forward in time to see who will commit crimes and arrest them before it happens? Haha.

    36. Re:You don't say... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Of course they have the right. Smoking pot was made illegal, and therefore, smoking it is punnishible. If you don't like that, then I suggest calling your senator/congressman, and telling them that the legalization of pot is an issue that will enfluence you're vote.

      I don't think that this will help all that much though. As most of the people that smoke pot that I know normally just stick to whining about it on web pages, that is when they have the will power to get up off the couch for a reason other than dorrito's. And even if the entire pot smoking community did rally together and vote into office someone that said that he was for the legalization of pot, he would promptly change his mind once he was in office, or at least bury the subject under a lot of paper so that it never see's the light of day.

    37. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I somehow accidentally hit tab and space, cause it to jump to submit and submit.

      Raise a bug. If the buttons went "[Preview] [Submit]", then your mistake would have caused a preview instead of a submit. They could change the order of the buttons.
    38. Re:You don't say... by killmenow · · Score: 2
      We are living in a cruel, cold world, you know. There is people out there who are willing to commit crimes without worrying consequences.
      It seems to me this is a social problem that legislation cannot fix. Some people are willing to die for their cause and no amount of legislation is going to change that fact.

      Prevention is a matter of deterrent. If there is enough of a deterrent, most people will be deterred. No amount of deterrent will stop a fanatic.

      It's like computer security. There is a continuum on which one end approaches complete security, and the other end approaches complete insecurity. If we let things go towards the complete freedom end, having no laws and no deterrent to crime, individual ethics will not save us. If we let things go towards the complete security end, we have no freedom to do anything.

      In real life, just like computer security, the trick is to find the point where we are secure enough and free enough simultaneously.

      Without locking the world down completely, we will always have to deal with those on whom deterrents are ineffective.

      I prefer to remain free and be assumed innocent of a crime until such time as I am proven guilty of one. Some people may use their freedom towards evil ends...the solution is not to lock us all up, rather it is to raise us up to a better level...to educate, create socially responsible governments, and raise all peoples out of poverty.

      In short, until humans evolve into a better species...we're fucked.
    39. Re:You don't say... by elgardo · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, the law is does not fit the situation. For example, you could prevent people from shooting eachother by making guns illegal in the US (as if that would ever happen). The result, however, would be that only the criminals would have guns.

      You could prevent people from speeding, by inserting electronics in their cars that would sense the speed limit. But this could be disasterous in an emergency situation.

      According to Georgia Law, the missionary position is the only allowed sexual position. In order to prevent people from doing it doggie style, they would need to put cameras everywhere. The world's largest porn collection would be in the hands of your government. Even if you followed the law, they would have your entire sexual history. Just how confortable are you with that thought?

      In order to prevent you from pumping your veins with something nasty, there will be a camera in your shower. The government will keep all your activities in the shower in their archives for at least seven years. Do you trust them with those video tapes?

      Then some day, your wife dies on the way to the hospital, because your car couldn't go above speed limit. If you were able to break the law by speeding, she would have gotten there in time, she would have been saved. And you want to speak up about this problem, blame the government. Do you still trust the government at that time?

      While your suit against the government goes on, some journalist manages to get hold a video tape from the government archive, with your wife sucking you. This is evidence that you broke the law, and the government will claim that you actually killed her to get rid of evidence. You get the chair.

      The conclusion: The more freedom you give up, the more privacy you give up, the more power you give the government, the more they will screw you over. And they will use that power to do more of the things overseas that generate terrorist attacks, because YOU won't be able to tell them that they can't.

      The government's job is not to protect the people, but to find out what people want and then enforce that. The people is the authority that decides over the government, and the government then enforces that will and administers the collective finances.

    40. Re:You don't say... by mvdwege · · Score: 2
      Look at the Netherlands for example, where pot is legal to own (in small quantities) and where the number of first-time drug users (and drug related deaths) is declining.

      A few years back we had some numbers on that. About 1 million people had used/still used marijuana. Of these 160.000 were regular/heavy users. These numbers had shown a significant growth over the time the survey was taken.

      In the same time period, the number of users of 'hard' drugs (heroin, cocaine, amphetamines) had stayed fairly constant.

      In other words, this study showed quite clearly that the 'stepping stone effect' that opponents of legalisation use, does not exist.

      I can't be bothered to look up the exact links now, but I believe the study was released by our Central Statistics Agency (CBS, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek). If you can read Dutch, you might want to try and search their website for more recent numbers. Or you might try our Health Ministry.

      I agree that prohibition is a losing proposition. However, the pro-legalisation side of the debate should never lose sight of the downsides of a permissive soft-drug policy. These downsides have been used by conservatives in the Netherlands to try to make the goverment retract our current policies.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    41. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can even buy pot IN JAIL. If they send you to jail for smoking pot, YOU CAN STILL SMOKE POT! Let's face it, if the Government can't keep pot out of the jails where they have control of everything, with armed guards and barbed wire and dogs and cameras and strip searches, if with all of that they can't keep pot out of jail, HOW CAN THEY KEEP IT OUT OF THE WHOLE COUNTRY??? THEY CAN'T It's IMPOSSIBLE. Give up. Stop trying. Stop wrecking peoples' lives and locking them up. YOU CAN'T MAKE A PLANT ILLEGAL! It's a PLANT. It's not a crime.

      The "War On Drugs" IS a crime. It's a crime against THE PEOPLE. The Government wants to be able to lock anybody up anytime they like. How do they do it? They make drugs illegal, then flood the country with drugs, allowing the CIA to make a healthy profit from the drugs to fund its covert operations. When people use the drugs, they lock them up. In Australia they now use police sniffer dogs to detect drugs on people walking down the street, or on the train, or in a nightclub. They search anybody anytime they like. And it's going to happen in YOUR town soon.

    42. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would prefer to get my pot from a pharmacist, who in turn, got it from a government controlled farm.

      Sorry, Comrade, pack your red bags and got to Cuba or North Korea. Why the hell do *I* have to support your bad habits?

      Simply because I could be sure that I am getting a quality product and the government could have a pretty high increase in tax income, instead of spending money on catching and prosecuting users and small-time traffickers. Organized crime (yes, and terrorist groups, rogue nations etc. think of the political lobbying that is possible right now...) wouldn't get its share, and I would be happy about it.

      Yes, that has been soooo effective with cigarettes and concrete in NYC right? No mob influence or revenue there huh? Nope, not a bit if your head is buried in the sand!

      Where does this notion come from that if the government has a regulatory role, or if the government taxes the shit out of something that profiteers are not going to come in and make money off of the artificially inflated price or the restricted distribution? What world do you live in?

      Yes, your disinformation strategy bit has a kernel of truth, however the rest of your post is a completely different type of disinformation.

      Fascists in denial like you really need to get a grasp on what you are advocating.

    43. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "responsibility" with an "s", and it's "freedom" with no "e" at the end.

    44. Re:You don't say... by The+Mayor · · Score: 2

      Yes, but we have a duty to overturn laws that make no sense. The punishment for posession of pot is completely disproportionate to the crime. In most cases, it is a "victimless" crime. When attempts to overturn such laws are unsuccessful, I feel it is the duty of the population to disobey the law in a peaceful manner.

      --
      --Be human.
    45. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to see another true conservative on here. Well, my assumption, since you did not propose some big giant government program to go along with making plants legal.

      I am still trying to find the enumerated federal power that allows them to make laws such as this. Just because the States have that power does not mean they have to make useless laws like that.

    46. Re:You don't say... by rherbert · · Score: 0
      You know, 1984 was a book of fiction. The planes colliding with the World Trade Center and Pentagon really happened.


      Perhaps your use of marijuana has skewed your view of what to fear. "Hey, man, there's a giant spider and it's coming to get me! Ahhhhh!"

    47. Re:You don't say... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      same reason cigarettes are bad to give to kids.
      Yes, cigarettes and hard liquor are bad for kids health. But a recent study of tobacco laws shows that, as always, prohibition doesn't work - states with tough laws against selling cigarettes to minors have not seen less teen smoking.
      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    48. Re:You don't say... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Of course they have the right. Smoking pot was made illegal, and therefore, smoking it is punnishible.

      They are areas of activity that the state simply has no legitimate authority (moral or legal) to legislate about.

      A law telling you what chemicals you may put into your own body is no more legitimate or valid than a law telling you what sexual positions you can use with your consenting partners, or what books you may read, or what god(s) you may (or may not) worship.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    49. Re:You don't say... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Isn't it better to try to prevent bad things happening rather than to trust that people will think what would be right or wrong?

      Giving excess power to the government pretty much ensures that bad things will happen. Trying to trade liberty for security doesn't work - you end up with neither.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    50. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I echo the call to mod up.

      The merchant is also responsible--they sold military-grade weapons without verifying their customer's identity. I've gotta believe that's illegal as hell.

      But ho-hum, you can't get the damn Feds to investigate this crime. Even after 9/11 "changed everything."

    51. Re:You don't say... by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 1
      Just because someone becomes in contact with a crime doesn't mean that they demand the release of basic human free will... [

      Assuming you mean basic human rights, not free will (you always have free will, even if they have cameras) it would be nice if this was true. Unfortunately, all too often it isn't. Sheeple are all too willing to sacrifice just about anything in the name of "peace and safety". Especially if it doesn't obviously map to affecting them personally in some way.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    52. Re:You don't say... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      You know, 1984 was a book of fiction. The planes colliding with the World Trade Center and Pentagon really happened.
      Other things that really happened include concentration camps for Americans of the wrong ancestry, criminalization of anti-war and anti-capitalist beliefs, a "free" nation with the world's highest prison population per-capita. Other things that are really happening right now are secret arrests and tribunals.
      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    53. Re:You don't say... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1
      They can do it for the same reason the they can institute mandatory seatbelt, or helmet laws. If you are under the influence, you are more likely to get hurt. Don't argue that fact, it's true, I've seen high people jump off of cliffs into a lake without checking the water first, drive down the road swirving between lanes, and play with knives and other harmful objects that they shouldn't be playing with sober.

      When you hurt yourself, not if, but when, your insurance, or health care will be forced to pay for it, if there are enough accidents, then the prices will be forced up.

    54. Re:You don't say... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1
      In other words, this study showed quite clearly that the 'stepping stone effect' that opponents of legalisation use, does not exist.

      You're absolutely correct, I mean, I'm sure that the kids in my school that started with pot, then moved on to acid, speed, XTC, and other various pills, then on again up to herion, crack, and all those other fun drugs had other reason for doing so. I mean, it probably had nothing to do with the pot they all smoked.

    55. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off, you dishonor all the people who HAVE LOST FAMILY & FRIENDS....

      acting like you speak for all of us.

      yea right.

    56. Re:You don't say... by l1gunman · · Score: 1


      The conclusion: The more freedom you give up, the more privacy you give up, the more power you give the government, the more they will screw you over. And they will use that power to do more of the things overseas that generate terrorist attacks, because YOU won't be able to tell them that they can't.

      Don't look now, but I think your tin-foil hat needs adjustment!

      This "the government is evil" nonsense is such tiring drivel. I do not believe, for even a millisecond, that the government is out to "screw us over". I think it it is more accurate to say that, in many areas, they don't understand or otherwise have a clue. (That said, I also believe that individuals such as Hollings-in-Disney's-pocket may be a credible counter example.) Our responsibility as citizens is to make them understand (i.e. exercise our voice in the government - the real meaning of freedom of speech) so that they can legislate and act according to the will of the people. If they don't, then our next obligation is to vote them out.

      All this black helicopter nonsense does is add heat, rather than light, to the topic at hand.

    57. Re:You don't say... by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Would permiting speeding psychologically harm others by increasing fear of drastic bodily harm via auto accidents? And if so, do the fearful deserve compensation?

      Alternately, at what level of probability should a possible transgression be punished? For instance, should an act that has a low probability of causing harm be forbidden if the unlikely harm is extremely high?

      If that sort of question interests you, hrm. Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" might intrigue you. It does NOT promise answers...

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    58. Re:You don't say... by walt-sjc · · Score: 2

      Using your logic, swingsets for kids need to be illegal, skateboards, kitchen knives, rope, power saws, bananas, use of socks on a hardwood floor, etc.

      I'm sorry, but laws "to protect us from ourselves" are wrong and always have been. Their existence does not make them right.

      Laws against drinking and driving are to protect others from you, and are OK. IMHO, the seatbelt law penalties should just be that no insurance will cover you if you get hurt from not wearing one. If you kill yourself because you don't wear a seatbelt that's YOUR problem. Seatbelt laws requiring you to secure your children are again OK since children are to young to understand the ramifications - but even this gets close to the line of acceptability. Again, skateboards, kitchen knives, etc. Where do you stop? It's clear our government doesn't know.

    59. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point was, there are "victimless crimes", like breaking the speed limit, smoking dope, etc. There are also targeted crimes, like stealing, arsony, etc. You have the right to pretty much do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe the rights of another. Targeted crimes infringe the rights of others; you don't have a right to do that.

    60. Re:You don't say... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1
      First, it's not my logic, it's the govt's logic. And while I don't fully agree with them, I also don't want to have to pay for someone's reconstructive surgery when they fly through their windsheild and land face first on the sidewalk. The laws aren't there to protect the person who is driving but to keep the govt/insurance/public from having to pay for their stupidity.

      Also, you are likely to have a more expensive medical bill if you wreck your car, than if you fall off of a swing.

    61. Re:You don't say... by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 1

      I've seen high people jump off of cliffs into a lake without checking the water first, drive down the road swirving between lanes, and play with knives and other harmful objects

      To be honest I've seen straight people doing all this, so whats your point? If those people had been properly educated about the effects of the drugs then they would be less likely to get into these situations anyway. If I'm under the influence I probably am more likely to get hurt, thats my decision to make though. I used to go surfing loads and regularly broke bones doing that so should that have been illegal to protect me from myself?

      There are enough reasons why cannabis is illegal, and they're all utter FUD except the health risks of cancer. The cancer side can be fixed by smoking through a vaporizer or eating the hash anyway. Pick your conspiracy theory really. My personal favourite is the Paper Pulp Industry one.

    62. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I love the QP with cheese :-D

      What can I say, I'm a simple man.

    63. Re:You don't say... by alienmole · · Score: 2
      You know, 1984 was a book of fiction. The planes colliding with the World Trade Center and Pentagon really happened.
      Other things that really happened include concentration camps for Americans of the wrong ancestry, criminalization of anti-war and anti-capitalist beliefs, a "free" nation with the world's highest prison population per-capita. Other things that are really happening right now are secret arrests and tribunals.
      Spot on. But the terrorists seem to have succeeded in elevating their status as a perceived threat far beyond any of the things you mention. The direct killing of large numbers of nominally innocent people at the same time seems to have a much greater impact on the average human psyche than more subtle threats, even if in the end, the more subtle threats are the ones likely to most degrade everyone's quality of life.
    64. Re:You don't say... by dubbed · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps your use of marijuana has skewed your view of what to fear. "Hey, man, there's a giant spider and it's coming to get me! Ahhhhh!""

      Stop talking out of your ass.

      and so what if 4000 americans died in the WTC think of it as retribution for Nicaragua and Guatemala and Vietnam and Irak ...

      --
      Codito, ergo sum.

    65. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since everyone else missed my point, I thought I should thank you for your reply.

    66. Re:You don't say... by TGK · · Score: 2

      Article I Section 8

      To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

      I think that about sums it up.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    67. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why the hell do *I* have to support your bad habits?

      Um, you wouldn't have to. The sale of drugs is a highly profitable business. Even if the "Government Issue Marijuana" was sold at 1/4 the current price, the government would be rolling in the money from it. You would not be supporting you, you would be benefitting from it, as a result of the diminished tax burden on you caused by marijuana revenue.

      ...make money off of the artificially inflated price...

      Again, the price could be significantly lower than it currently is. Do you have any idea what the current markup is on marijuana? Try somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 17,000%.

    68. Re:You don't say... by colmore · · Score: 2

      "To punish people who take liberties with their rights."

      Heaven forbid we have liberty!

      What you mean is to punish people who act outside of their rights.

      To live in a (somewhat) safe and (somewhat) ordered society, we surrender some rights. In an orderless society, I would have the right to kill and steal. I (involuntarily) surrender these rights for the privelidge of living in this society. I see no problem with this. What other rights do I give up, and what further benifits do I gain by doing so? These are the big questions.

      Past the first steps of giving up the right to do obviously cruel and harmful things to others, I don't think giving up freedom for safety is ever a very good idea. If a man threatens me, I can deal with him on more or less equal footing (go out and buy a gun, intimidate him, etc.) if the government threatens me, I am powerless within the law. At such a point my friends and I excercise the 2nd amendment and perhaps the greatest lesson of 20th century urban warfare: resistance by an armed populace is frighteningly hard to control. Guerilla warfare, baby, the last tool of the true citizen.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    69. Re:You don't say... by colmore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The drinking age in America was 18 in most places until the Reagan highway bill. He tied highway funding to the drinking age to incourage states to up it to 21. Conceivably a State could get rid of the drinking age alltogether, but the federal government would make up all sorts of unrelated things to penalize them on.

      Further proof that the modern American government in *no way* resembles the government described in the constitution.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    70. Re:You don't say... by SkyLeach · · Score: 2

      "You can get where you're going without speeding."
      But we can get there faster by speeding. Did you have a point here? Everybody wants police on the road to stop idiot dangerous drivers.

      "minors can get their own damn booze :)"
      Um, no they can't and that's the problem. I am a parent, and I love my children. But I want them to learn about the dangers and pleasures of wine and beer from me, not be droped headfirst into drinking at the unstable age of 21 amidst floudering loosers in bar scenes. The missinformation purposfully spread by anti-youth drinking campaigns is destabalizing our culture. Besides, this is unquestionable discrimination by age, something outlawed by the government. When I was 18 I was ten times more mature than any 21 year old I have ever met. That's not to brag, but rather because I had been through more crap than most 18 year olds.

      "and everyone (IMHO) can do without night-vision rifle scopes."
      Except the government. Perhaps you missed this part, but the right to bear arms wasn't granted for hunting, but to protect us from those that wanted to take away our other rights. They couldn't find a way to keep us from having the right to own and bear arms, so they just changed it to be that we couldn't own and bear any arms that were worth anything against the people in power. Effectively destroying the purpose of the right without removing the right completely. People are correct when they say this right has no reason for being anymore: it's been rendered worthless.

      --
      My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    71. Re:You don't say... by colmore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      probably not.

      certain people are predisposed (for whatever reason) to liking narcotics and not really minding the idea of breaking the law.

      a sequential chain of events *does not* mean a causal chain. just because A happens before B does not mean that A causes B, and any argument based on that assumption is very very flawed.

      what i'm saying is, the of course the kids who do heroin are smoking weed. but i bet they drink too. hey i bet most of them work in fast food places. i bet they smoke cigarettes. why is pot the cause of the heroin and not anything else in their life.

      the only "gateway" aspect to pot is the mental barrier to breaking the law. a pot smoker (and i'm talking from experience here) begins to see the law as an arbitrary social construction that is to be creatively avoided as opposed to blindly obeyed. the mental barrier to doing hard drugs becomes much lower after this realization.

      now, i'm smart, i've read up on the side effects of other drugs and i wan't nothing to do with it. the only permanent damage pot does is too your lungs. and trust me after 3 years of smoking (including pretty heavy smoking during the summers) i have no greater desire to do coke than i ever did. pot does not increase cravings for narcotics. that doesn't even make medical sense. it's a cannabinoid, which is a very different chemical from hallucinagins, amphetamines, steroids, alcohols, and opiates (the chemicals in most other drugs) it's like saying that drinking coffee will get you hooked on cigarettes or alcohol.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    72. Re:You don't say... by colmore · · Score: 2

      Safety laws are a touchy subject.

      Seatbelts and helments are required because road injuries cost the government tons of money, and you don't have any sort of constitutional right to a car, and you don't own the road, so the state can set whatever requirements it likes on driving.

      Meanwhile, most ways I can choose to hurt myself are perfectly legal. I can stick a razor blade into my leg and the cops won't have anything to say about it.

      And the argument that pot impairs judgement and should thus be illegal is silly. Alcohol impairs judegement far worse. Most people who get too stoned just sit on a chair and stare off into space or at the TV, really drunk people attempt far crazier stunts.

      So if pot should be illegal because it creates a public nuisance of impaired stoners, then alcohol should be made illegal as well.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    73. Re:You don't say... by colmore · · Score: 2

      Even in crippled form, the right to bear arms is still useful.

      If the population of New York City decided to go into open revold, holed themselves up in buildings with only small arms and rifles, the government would have a bloody mess of a time doing anything about it.

      People underestemate their ability to resist opression.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    74. Re:You don't say... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1
      I can stick a razor blade into my leg and the cops won't have anything to say about it.

      actually, they'll probably tackle you, then you'll be sedated by some doctors, and they will try to have you committed.

    75. Re:You don't say... by DLWormwood · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you're both right. The power of the goverment to scr-w people over is not out of malice, but out of incompentence. The saying that the Road To Hell is paved with good intentions is completely true. Because of human nature, any large organization, whether government, corporation, or church, is capable of and will perform great "evil." It's inevitable.

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    76. Re:You don't say... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1
      the mental barrier to doing hard drugs becomes much lower after this realization.

      you say this, then you say that it has nothing to do with it?

    77. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can you expect from the Christian Science Monitor.

      Christian Science........hhmmmmmmmm
      Military Intelligence.....hhmmmmmmmm
      Is there a connection, or similarity?

    78. Re:You don't say... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      He's saying that those reasons that actually exist to support the idea of pot as a gateway drug are solely a factor of the way the drug is treated by society and the government, and not anything to do with the drug itself. Making the drug illegal is what causes it to be a gateway drug, and thus supporting its illegal status because it is a gateway drug is not only ridiculous, it's counterproductive.

      Honestly, the only thing people who know something about pot (and not just what was taught in D.A.R.E) can say to argue why you shouldn't use it is that you could go to jail if you do.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    79. Re:You don't say... by walt-sjc · · Score: 2

      Bing! That's right. Now you currently pay for that through higher insurance rates since not wearing a seatbelt is covered. That person would be required to pay for his own medical bills if the law says that ins doesn't cover if you are not wearing seatbelts. The government could garnish his wages to make sure he does. If he has trouble paying the med bills, no reconstructive surgury. He goes through the rest of his life with his face looking like hamburger.

      Second, falling off a swing can break your neck and make you a parapalegic for life. Likelyhood doesn't change the analogy.

      Bottom line is that most of our laws are fucking stupid, written by stupid people who feel they need to sick their big noses in everyone elses personal life. Rather than just enforce the basic commense sense that you are liable for you own actions or inactions, they feel that people need hand-holding.

      Watching TV, (peoples court, ricky lake, opra, etc.) you get the feeling that the entire country is full of fucking morons. While there are lots of morons, they are in the exploitable (for entertainment purposes) minority which makes them great targets for TV. The average person on the street does have some common sense, and is reasonably intelligent. Our laws don't give the majority credit for having any brains.

      The fact is, stupid people will continue to be stupid regardless of law. Making criminals out of stupidity serves no purpose than to fill our court system and jails with you and me picking up the tab.

    80. Re:You don't say... by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      Of course, your anecdotes about losers at the local high school are more valid evidence than studies conducted across a country over decades.

    81. Re:You don't say... by ebbomega · · Score: 2

      It's too bad that the only way they know how to do that is by punishing those who commit crimes.

      The closest thing that the North American governments do is make verbal threats illegal. But that's about it.

      --
      Karma: Non-Heinous
    82. Re:You don't say... by l1gunman · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I don't know who said it but...

      Never ascribe to malice that which can equally be ascribed to stupidity (or incompetence or ignorance, etc.).

      That said, I'll stick my neck out a little further. I've seen and read a lot of bad, malicious things stated about Ashcroft. Do we really believe that he wants to establish some kind of police state where the government rules every aspect of our little lives. Don't you believe it! This cannot be a power grab - he'll be gone with the next Administration. He means well, I really believe that. Problem is, he doesn't have all the facts, hasn't thought everything through (who could sift through it all?) and faced with the horrific potential of psychotic acts such as occurred on 9/11, he is terrified at what could happen if he fails to do his job. How many of us have put error checks into code for things that we thought might never happen, but we were just trying to be thorough?

    83. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL!

      That summs up nothing! It does not say or imply that the feds can make up any law they like, as you seem to think it means.

      What "forgoing powers" were expressly granted to the feds to regulate commerce? If you try the Interstate Commerce clause try again, that is there to prevent the States from unfairly dealing with each other.

      I will accept the Postal Roads clause for the federal highway system, even the Defense powers within the Congress for the Interstate system, but your post does not apply to regulating pot.

    84. Re:You don't say... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      To live in a (somewhat) safe and (somewhat) ordered society, we surrender some rights. In an orderless society, I would have the right to kill and steal. I (involuntarily) surrender these rights for the privelidge of living in this society.

      How is it involuntary? You are over the age of consent, right? So no one is actually forcing you to stay here. Choosing to remain witin a society is de facto acceptance of it's laws as laws. Not necessarily accepting that they are good laws or just laws or even laws that you will obey, but that they are the laws you are going to live under.

      If you dislike the laws taking away certain rights, then go somewhere where the laws are different. I don't know if there are countries where killing and stealing are sanctioned by the government, but then I'm not the one who claims to be involuntarily living under laws agaisnt it.

      Have you done any research on the subject? And if you found such a place would you move there? If the answer to either or both of those questions is no, then the decision to live without those rights is pretty darn voluntary on your part.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    85. Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow the conservitive in you needs to get in touch with the oriential mistic in you. It summs up nothing and everything.

      The elastic clause, much like judicial review, is a power only so long as it is belived to be a power. Congress shall make any law it damn well pleases until someone forces it to think otherwise. So long as the US Supreme Court says that legislation like that is allowable under the Constitution it IS allowable. This is not to say that the USSC is infallible, mearly that to it falls the ONLY FINAL RESPONCIBILITY to interpret the Constitution.

      If you don't like its decisions that's one thing. You are more than welcome to disagree and think it sucks.

      But what it all comes down to is that Congress can do what the Courts tell it it can. As long as interstate commerse and the elastic clause hold up than that's what the Constitution means (until the Court overturns those rulings).

      --Killfile

    86. Re:You don't say... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      If the entire city of New York decided to do anything like, oh, say, all start smoking pot, then what exactly would the government be able to do about it? Arrest all 8(?) million people?

      Why exactly do they need the guns?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    87. Re:You don't say... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Would permiting speeding psychologically harm others by increasing fear of drastic bodily harm via auto accidents?

      I see people speed, it doesn't scare me. its when they are being impatient and agressive that make me think somethings going to happen. Even then though, i am glad they are moving further away from me faster. I think the reason i'm not scared though is b/c i'm paying close attention and have confidence in my ability to avoid an accident. Which brings me to the cause of most accidents; people either are not paying enough attention (driving ALWAYS must come first to everything else you're doing in the car), or they are being careless.

      And if so, do the fearful deserve compensation?

      No. No one deserves compensation b/c someone else scared them. They need to grow up and handle thier emotions. In the case of driving, if you ARE scared of speeders or being in an accident in general, stay off the highway! Driving is inherently dangerous. If you cannot accept that you might be hurt or killed while driving, you should not be driving. Not everything you do is safe.

      Alternately, at what level of probability should a possible transgression be punished?

      You do not punish people for things that have not happened. I know for a fact that some people drive 80mph in a 55 zone on i276. i see it EVERYDAY. Yet there's not an accident everyday (nor every month, at least for the time i spend on the road, ~2hrs total. And yes i know thats only 1/12th of the time people are on the road, but those 2 hrs are rush hour which i imagine would have a higher probability of something happening). Giving the number of cars on the road, the number involved in accidents is pretty low.

      I mean why not profile people, and if they are (according to the profile) likely to commit some crime, arrest them on the spot?

      For instance, should an act that has a low probability of causing harm be forbidden if the unlikely harm is extremely high?

      Thats the problem with trying to punish something that hasn't happened. You never really know where to draw the line. I'll admit i speed; but in my 8 years of driving so far, i have never caused an accident. And the ONE i was in was b/c some people where not paying attention, not b/c they were speeding (i believe they WERE doing the speed limit, actually).

      If that sort of question interests you, hrm. Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" might intrigue you. It does NOT promise answers...

      I gather its a philosophical book, which always interest me. :-) I'll probably check it out.

    88. Re:You don't say... by SkyLeach · · Score: 2

      "If the population of New York City decided to go into open revold, holed themselves up in buildings with only small arms and rifles, the government would have a bloody mess of a time doing anything about it."

      The problem is getting even 5% of the population to be involved in the *start of a revolution. Revolutions are won or lost by about 1% of the population, in the first couple of weeks of the revolt. If the government succeeds in squashing them without too much public mess then the government wins. Weapons play an immeasurably important role in those first few weeks.

      Once the entire city of new yourk is in revolt, guns don't matter anymore... the government has already lost.

      Of course, the real weapon of choice is the media, which is why it's easier to get your hands on a PPG than a broadcast studio.

      --
      My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    89. Re:You don't say... by Tassach · · Score: 2
      However, it is the last thing I would want to see in the hands of a 12, 13 year old child (that seems to be a prime age for the beginnings of cigarette smoking).
      Oh yeah, like making it illegal keeps those 12 and 13 year olds from toking up. News flash -- Prohibition Does Not Work. Never has, never will. When I was a teenager, it was actually *easier* to buy weed than it was to buy a 6-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes. Drug dealers don't ask for ID, ya know. Somehow, I doubt things have changed that much in the last 20 years. If anything, legalization would make it harder for kids to get pot. People are going to buy it regardless of whether it is legal or not -- so it makes far more sense to legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. Plus it keeps the profits out of the hands of criminals [well, at least the street variety, if not the boardroom variety]. If you as a parent are bothered by the idea of your kids smoking (either tobacco or pot) or drinking alcohol, then it is *your* responsibility as a parent to educate them and instill them with your values. It's not the government's job to raise your children.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    90. Re:You don't say... by Tassach · · Score: 2
      don't have any sort of constitutional right to a car,
      Wrong. The Constitution is silent on the matter of cars. However, there is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly gives the government the right to deprive the people of the basic right of free passage on public lands and roads. [Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.] The government's Constitutional authority to regulate the use of automobiles on the public highways is no greater or less than it's right to regulate the use of horses or feet.
      The government has no Constitutional authority to deprive you of your Rights because you chose to move about in an automobile than you should if you do so on horseback or on foot.
      and you don't own the road
      , Wrong again. I (and every other citizen) *DO* own the road, and the park, and the Capitol. Public lands are owned *by* *the* *People*. The State holds them in trust in the name of the people, and manages and administers them for the mutual benefit of all the people.
      so the state can set whatever requirements it likes on driving
      Wrong yet again. A State can only (lawfully) exersize those powers that have been EXPLICTLY granted to it by the people via the US Constitution or that state's Constitution. [Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.]
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  4. RTFA please by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dude was in a foreign country. In Amman, Jordan to be exact. This is a sensationalist version of basically what amounts to standard fraud, except dude was in a middle-eastern country where a lot of people aren't friendly to the US and West in general. Granted, sucks that this occured, but is it news?

    Synopsis: Journalist travels to Middle Eastern country. While there, orders stuff on his Amex. Amex receipt (I assume? Article not too clear on this) was used to purchase military equipment. Sucks, but such is life. This doesn't have anything to do with Privacy in the US, as far as I can see.

    As a side note, when I was in the Middle East, (USMC--Oohrah!) we were instructed to make purchases only in their currency, so scams (which is all it really is) wouldn't happen.

    Lastly, why the hell wasn't his card cancelled? Is he that stupid?

    I seriously doubt this story is real at all, come to think of it.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:RTFA please by BitHive · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you didn't RTFA. The problem is that the privacy practices prevented any real investigation of the fraud. Yes, fraud sucks. Sucks even more that the reporter's hands were tied in trying to get to the bottom of it, wouldn't you say?

    2. Re:RTFA please by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2

      UHm, I did read the article. yes, it does suck very much that this (might have) happened. I am extremely skeptical of this, however. Here's the deal: No call from the FBI in 6 months? Did he even try calling back? Why wasn't his card cancelled immediately once he realized this was occuring? To see how far it would go? Something just isn't sitting right with me on this, I don't know why, but I smell a rat.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    3. Re:RTFA please by rufusdufus · · Score: 2

      hahahahahaa the FBI will never call you back. You've never dealt with them before have you? They do nothing whatsover. You've been watching too much tv.

    4. Re:RTFA please by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2

      From above: "hahahahahaa the FBI will never call you back."

      then, as an investigative reporter (which is what he is in this case) he should have went to them and found out why they weren't helping him. One phone call and that's it? It's a wonder this dude ever got his cable service hooked up. Serious lack of effort on his part, story sounds like a woe-is-me, feel-sorry-for-me sob story.

      All I am saying, he made 1 frigging phone call and then has the cajones to bitch about it? Gotta love democracy in action, eh?

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    5. Re:RTFA please by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

      It is completely obvious to me that you have never dealt with law enforcement. They don't do anything. Nothing. You can call them till the cows come home, but you won't get one useful bit of information from them. Its not like on TV at all.
      I don't want to believe it either, but in the past year I have dealt with the FBI and the police on several unrelated incidences including check and credit card fraud, a psycho stalker, internet fraud, and outright assault. In each case, they put up barriers which prevented me from making any progress. I now know that their whole job is to blow you off and get paid doing it.

    6. Re:RTFA please by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2

      I feel for you. And, please stop with the TV comments, I have some idea of what I speak :) Anyhow, you kinda missed my point. Dude only made *ONE* call to the FBI. Personally, my angle would be:

      I was scammed overseas, I tried to correct it, and no one would help. I bugged the FBI day in a day out for X-amount of weeks, etc., and no one helped me, why is this?

      why he didn't go for this angle, I can only guess. Probably because terrorism is "in" right now, and it was the vogue thing to do. Anyway, that's what I think. You?

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    7. Re:RTFA please by Afty0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This doesn't have anything to do with Privacy in the US, as far as I can see."

      You are right, it doesn't have anything to do with privacy in the US, but along with the majority of your fellow countrymen, you seem to have forgotten that there are still a few humans on this planet who have not yet managed to obtain US citizenship.

    8. Re:RTFA please by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2

      The article was about a US citizen overseas. Has absolutely nothing do do with anyone else other than that US citizen. So, in your need to bash me, you forgot what the article was essentially about. Which is ok, happens all the time here on /.

      And, as someone who has been all over the world, yes, I do realize there are a lot of people out there that aren't as blessed (yes, I said blessed) to be American. We have our issues, sure, but so does every other country.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    9. Re:RTFA please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Em Emalb wrote:
      Has absolutely nothing do do with anyone else other than that US citizen.

      Look "Em Emalb", if that IS your REAL name, if you're going to start threads named "RTFA please" and then start flaming people in it, you could at least READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE yourself. Look, here's two paragraphs FROM THE ARTICLE which indicate that it DOES have something else to do with another US citizen:
      One of my colleagues at The Christian Science Monitor, Jerusalem correspondent Nicole Gaouette, noticed similar unauthorized charges on her credit card statement.

      She had passed through Amman a few weeks after me, and had eaten at the same hotel restaurant, where she paid the bill with her credit card.

      You are either a hypocrite and a pathetic troll, or else you need to dramatically improve your reading comprehension skills to STOP WASTING EVERYBODY ELSE'S TIME WITH YOUR BULLSHIT. PLONK!
    10. Re:RTFA please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude!

      PLONK right back to you.

    11. Re:RTFA please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. The repeated "I just wanted a waffle" doesn't make it any better. Very yellow, this reporting.

    12. Re:RTFA please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I toss my vote in with the Marine.

      Why?
      1) The writer is a *JOURNALIST* (i.e. shit-for-brains)
      2) The writer did not cancel his card after a $3100 purchase was attempted on his corporate card?!?! (i.e. "My company will take care of it" or "Eh, whatever, no big deal." just doesn't cut it when fraud is occuring. Heck, I cancelled my card after a billing error put $1100+ on my card)
      3) "If we don't stop credit card fraud, the terrorists have already won." - This story smells of femunda cheese.

    13. Re:RTFA please by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      Not to stick my nose in, but he is running this story to cover his ass too. He doesn't want some government agency to assume he was ordering high-tech night vision equipment and shipping them to the middle east.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    14. Re:RTFA please by Phronesis · · Score: 1
      Granted, sucks that this occured, but is it news?

      Let's see, "reporter tells FBI that terrorists are using multiple credit cards to fraudulently order weapons illegally and FBI does not follow up within half a year." No. No, you're right. It's not news. No citizens would be interested in knowing about this. Might make them feel badly about their government. Let's just tell them happy stories about how effectively we're fighting the "war on terror."

    15. Re:RTFA please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the FBI investigate an assault charge?

  5. Privacy verses Terrorism by Diabolical · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course privacy is being used against us. It allways has and always will be. Every country has it's examples of this fact.

    But would it be worth it to give up our privacy to maintain a false feeling of security? Terrorists will always be able to get their hands on weapons and other stuff to use against us. Whether it is through buying stuff with stolen creditcards or use of a malafide dealer or manufacturer. Weapons and other military stuff are being produced all over the world.

    In the light of 9/11 would we have to give up our privacy? For what? The hijackers used frigging hobby knives and some of them weren't even known terrorists. The absense of privacy is not a threath to them. It is to us though...

    What's more important is that our governments will not be a totalitarian one and our every move would not be under scrutiny by the government. I like my privacy although i know that my name and other information is going through hundreds of databases each day. I would never like the idea of a government knowing every little thing i say or do though. What's preventing a government of misuse of all that information?

    1. Re:Privacy verses Terrorism by forkboy · · Score: 2

      Why is this marked as flamebait? This is the smartest fucking thing anyone's said in response to this article...the guy's absolutely right. Our government seems to have a privacy-removing agenda going on lately, from nuts like Ashcroft all the way up to Bush. There's even a bill being repeatedly sent through Congress to ban yet even more handguns/small arms on the grounds they could be used in "terrorist acts." I mean come on...these guys used freakin box cutters on their airplanes...this is isn't Afghanistan, you need certain qualifications to even BUY a gun. (like citizenship, a drivers license, and the ability to pass a background check) And buying on the black market...well, that's going to be even easier if more guns get banned.

      Not to mention the so-called Patriot Act and its provisions to make electronic intrusion a "terrorist act."

      All this in the name of fighting terrorism. Someone mod this guy back up. -1 Flamebait, my ass.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  6. If you eat waffles, you might supports Terrorists! by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    They were probably Belgian waffles, named for a country known for its inability to defend itself in World War II. Belgium also produces a type of beer which is dark and cloudy, possibly containing coded messages for terrorists, and brewed by religious zealots sometimes called "monks." By contrast, honest American beer is transparent and produced by huge corporations you can Trust, because they put the "Born On" date on the bottle and use Pure Rocky Mountain Spring Water and Rice, which definitely belongs in beer no matter what those Communists in Europe say.

    Clearly, if you want to fight Terrorism, you must never travel, never use your credit card, and whatever you do DON'T ORDER THE WAFFLES!!!

    "All I wanted was a Pepsi!"

  7. Eh, it's normal, it's commerce. by lfourrier · · Score: 1

    For years, european country implemented smartcards for credit card. You cannot use them to pay without a PIN. but it needs physical presence and special equipement.
    For years, the US refused to implement them, cause they have no problem with no security in there system. Eh, it's easy to buy, so it's good for business.
    Now, on person is victim of the classical use of somebody else card number (remember the movie Fletch, with Chavy Chase?). He has his money back, so there is no problem.
    Now, if law enforcement agency come to see him about that purchase, it is a problem of data quality in government used systems. And now, we have one more illustration of the interest of laws protecting individual citizens about use of data about them. Look at french law "informatique et liberté", which state that people have a right to know what data are stored about them, and to have them corrected in case of error. Of course, there are always provision for exemption in case of national security, and we have a classical problem of all democracies: how can governement protect high values, without respecting them ?

  8. Naughty privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Privacy is such a bad thing, isn't it. All those nasty people using it to wage war on you, personally. Maybe we should get rid of it, after all, if you've got nothing to hide - what's your problem?

    In fact, why are you even questioning this?

    What have you been doing?

    Have you taken any trips to the middle east recently?

    Do you know how to fly a plane?

    You use computers?

    Maybe we should lock you away somewhere, just to be on the safe side - after all, we all have to do our bit to prevent terrorism.

    The problem has nothing to do with one dumb journalist. It even has nothing to do with someone getting hold of an IR rifle sight on the cheap (which they could have got anyway). Its not technology that's at war with the US; its people.

    People who have a hatred, right or wrong, deserved or not, of the US.

    Until the US stops trying to use two buildings as a reason to give their government even more power - to crush even more people; and actual DO something about the root cause, then I'm afraid that people will wage asymetric warfare against you, and they will continue to succeed in some of those attacks.

    This kind of story is a red herring, spend your efforts in understanding WHY people hate you, then do something about THAT.

    You cannot secure your freedom by crushing people and giving away your own freedom - only by realising you are part of one world, and that everyone else has as much right to their beliefs and their freedom as you do.

    Unfortunately I would have to say that the US has failed to benefit from 11/9, failed to grow. In the end, everyone will suffer because of that.

    OK, sanity over, time for the yahoos to spout forth again.

    1. Re:Naughty privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We uinderstand why we're hated. We're the 800 pound gorilla and those are never popular.

      BTW, since you're a sophosticated European, unlike us simple Americans, you do know who Chinese Gordon and the Mahdi is don't you?

      This is a clash of cultures, either the world ends up in the 21st Century, or it doesn't.

  9. Bugga Wooga Manna Yagga by The+Rolling+Blackout · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    So you get one or the other: the 2nd amendment, or the 4th. Or you can accept a fatalistic worldview, take both, and be content with natural scheme of things: He who shoots first, wins (in the short term).

    I honestly don't understand why so many people are attempting to defeat the above system. Fsck a bunch of kids with semiautomatics. It amounts to numbers and cojones, a la Scarface.

    Does anybody at this point (six billion plus) really consider any individual human existence that sacred? Ridiculous. Several poor guys in India can program just as well as you. Give your imaginary divinity up and taste the blood.

    --
    sig-free as of 28 July 02!
    1. Re:Bugga Wooga Manna Yagga by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

      Yah mon, your right, I don't value your life that much. You go out there and taste the blood. I'll be right behind you..real soon now.

  10. Freedoms by DarkZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The freedoms enjoyed by millions of people can be exploited by a few hundred, or even a few thousand malicious people. This is new to someone? Someone ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD? Wow. You must know very, very little about the histories of free countries, as well as very basic things like the wide availability of kitchen knives, which can be used to cut meat and also murder family members in their sleep.

    Why do these stories suddenly become new or shocking when the word "terrorist" is connected to them? Are so many people really that ignorant about the basics of how freedoms work and the costs that come with them? This stuff is so simple that it could be taught to first graders and they would fully understand it in less than an hour.

  11. TV commercials. by Una · · Score: 4, Funny

    Strangely enough, This reminds me of the war on drugs commercial where they have multitudes of teenage children proclaiming "I support terrorists" and "I killed those cops", and at the end gives a message something to the effect of "If you use drugs, Your supporting terrorism."

    Now Id really like to see a new mastercard commerical along those same lines:

    Hotel room in Jordan: $125 a night.
    Crispy waffle breakfast: $5
    Knowing your MasterCard helped Al Qaeda terrorists buy weapons: Priceless.

    -Una

    1. Re:TV commercials. by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 1
      Strangely enough, This reminds me of the war on drugs commercial where they have multitudes of teenage children proclaiming "I support terrorists" and "I killed those cops", and at the end gives a message something to the effect of "If you use drugs, Your supporting terrorism."

      This commercial always really ticks me off. In fact, just reading a reference to it has gotten my hackles up.

      Disclaimer: I'm not into drugs, never used them and have no interest. I have only on very rare occaisions even partaken in alcohol. I'm not defending my favorite pastime here.

      This commercial so incredibly hypocritical. The reason those drugs fund terrorist operations is because they are so incredibly profitable. It's CHEAP to grow/make and the risks of producing/distributing them drive the price way up. So profits are HUGE. Small investment BIG return.

      So who is responsible for this? Is it the kids who pay the horribly overinflated prices? Or is it the government that has a ridiculous ban on (some) drugs which makes such a market possible? More than that, they go in and burn the crops sometimes which makes the price go even higher as demand temporarily exceeds supply.

      All this under a banner of altruism and mantra of protecting our children when all they really want is an opportunity to extend government power and control. Which of course extends police powers to the point where they are corrupted by it and end up accepting bribes, selling the drugs they seize on the side, planting evidence to gain homes/cars/etc they want and so on.

      Meanwhile, the kids they are ostensibly trying to protect and their parents/loved ones are killed in terrorist attacks funded by the market they created.

      ARGH!
      </rant mode>

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    2. Re:TV commercials. by cluke · · Score: 1

      I remember reading a comment from some Colombian drug producer, replying to US demands to stop cocaine production to the effect that "we'll stop making it when you stop buying it".

    3. Re:TV commercials. by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      Right...this social engineering is getting annoying. Now it's going to be "anything the government doesn't like is supporting terrorism". "I asked Congresspeople too many nosey questions - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM!" "I hounded corrupt corporations about EPA/accounting abuses - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM" "I did something different than normal mainstream sheeple that believe whatever the government and centralized media shove down their gullets - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM!" "Hey, it's my "

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    4. Re:TV commercials. by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1

      I am not a cop, but it seems to me that one of the main motivations to keep the prohibition ball rolling is the enormous profit potential for local law enforcement agencies.

      Police work on a limited income. When they arrest violent offenders, it does make the world a better place, but it generates no money for them. No matter how hard they work, it will still take an act of (local) Congress to earn them a pay raise, as a whole.

      Now, what happens when they arrest someone for drug possession? Well, if it is a large enough stash to claim "intent to sell," they get cars, boats, land, houses, and piles of cash.

      It's not like that stuff is going straight into honest cops' wallets, but it does make it easier for them to earn pay raises. After so many "money" fights at home, they're much more likely than us to convince themselves that busting people on drug offenses and confiscating all their property is a moral, or even honorable thing to do. Since the alternative is to remain on a fixed income while working at a job that puts them in constant physical danger, they probably don't want to examine the ethics of it too closely.

      --

      Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    5. Re:TV commercials. by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 2
      It's not like that stuff is going straight into honest cops' wallets, but it does make it easier for them to earn pay raises. After so many "money" fights at home, they're much more likely than us to convince themselves that busting people on drug offenses and confiscating all their property is a moral, or even honorable thing to do. Since the alternative is to remain on a fixed income while working at a job that puts them in constant physical danger, they probably don't want to examine the ethics of it too closely.

      Unfortunately, it /is/ going straight into cops' wallets. :-( Pay raises take a long time, and higher-ups tend to look the other way. It's bad enough, that cops have actually raided other cops doing sting operations and walked off with the proceeds.

      I'm not trying to disparage /all/ cops or anything, there certainly are honest cops out there, but the more power we grant to them the fewer there are and the more those that /are/ honest get corrupted. (Power corrupts) The opportunities there are just too hard to resist.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
  12. Partial solution CC fraud: volutary limits by Drashcan · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Why don't the credit card companies introduce the possibility for the card holders to opt out of certain categories of goods so that the credit card cannot be used to buy these kind of goods?

    I am thinking in the first place about firearms. These are usually sold in specialised stores which can be easily identified in the credit card transaction databases. Most people do not buy firearms very often and certainly not with a credit card.

    This could also apply to other goods.

    --
    The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
    1. Re:Partial solution CC fraud: volutary limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specialized stores? I can buy several calibers of rifle, 2 gauges of shotguns,a wide variety of scopes, hundreds of rounds of ammo and the camo to wear with them at the WalMart that's a mile from my house.

      I can use my credit card to do it also.

      Also, I've used my credit card for 4 of the last 5 gun purchases I've made (all within the last 2 years).

    2. Re:Partial solution CC fraud: volutary limits by gbroiles · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. Some firearms are sold in gun stores, some are sold in "sporting goods" stores, and some are sold in big generalized stores like Wal-mart.

      Also, the merchant type is set by the merchant once, when their credit card merchant account is set up - so only gun-only stores are likely to show up as "gun store", and even they will be wary if that designation is likely to make it harder to buy things there. (What if a non-shooter goes to a gun store to buy hearing protection, or pepper spray, or a gift for a shooter?)

      I don't know where you got the idea that people don't buy guns with credit cards - most of my guns were paid for with credit or debit cards, because nobody uses checks any more, and I don't usually carry enough cash to buy an average-priced gun (probably between $500 and $1500 for moderate quality handguns or long guns).

      Here in the People's Repbulik of Kalifornia, you can't take a gun home the day you buy it (even if you've already got a safe full of 'em, and hence aren't prevented from whatever mayhem the legislature thinks you've got planned) .. which means you're paying in advance for something you're allegedly going to receive in 11 days or so .. which is the perfect situation to use a credit card for, given the obligations of the issuing bank to refund your money if the transaction fails between purchase and when you pick up the gun. (What if they sell it to someone else/lose it? What if the store burns down? If you paid with cash/check/debit card, you're at their mercy. If you paid with a credit card, you initiate a chargeback and let them sweat over the details.)

    3. Re:Partial solution CC fraud: volutary limits by Sangui5 · · Score: 1

      In a rather ineffectual way, they already do that.

      I've not been the victim of CC fraud, but I've been contacted by my fraud department before. Apparently any large purchases of computer equipment get flagged as possibly fraudulent by Capital One. When I bought a new computer last year, I ordered ~800 of parts from one merchant. The next day the fraud dept. called to verify the order.

      Now, the CC companies called to verify $800 of computer parts. I think that it'd be reasonable for them to call up the cardholder to verify $3100 of gun accessories? Much larger sum, and it's probably just as easy to fence as the electronics.

    4. Re:Partial solution CC fraud: volutary limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Used my Mastercard to purchase a Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine gun (wouldn't take AMEX). Since it takes time for the Treasury/BATF to process the transfer paperwork (Federal Form 4) before you can legally take possession, the card is a great way to retain leverage if gov't looses the forms. Transferable MP5, $4,000. Crate of 9mm, $450. Not living in Kalifornia, priceless.

  13. Transparent Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I've been saying for a long time now - as techno-geeks we should be fighting to decrease privacy not increase it. "What?" you cry - but I mean decrease privacy for _everyone_, including government and law enforcement.

    Total Societal Transparency. Given the existence of surveillance, the only real way to avoid an Orwellian dystopia is to give _everyone_ the power of surveillance, not just a select few.

    Please read "The Transparent Society" by David Brin. Chapter one is available online here

    1. Re:Transparent Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
      EVERYBODY! If they do want to keep everybody's information in databases and let the government find out anything about anybody any time they want, they have to let everybody access the databases and find out anything they want as well. It's the only fair way.

  14. Thank, Erm, Christ, For The Christians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their vigilance once again saves us from those nasty, *nasty* followers of Allah!

  15. So, When does somebody actually reveal the truth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That the ICA, NSA, FBI, President Bush and his son George W. are behind the greatest terrorist outrage of modern times in order to oust a hostile regime so's they can build an oil pipeline across that peoples' lands for their rich oil cronies?

    Waiting for the truth. Still waiting. And still...yeah, right...


  16. it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us.

    You know, that's such bullshit. If everything that -one way or another- can be used against you would be evil, there would be nothing left. Hey, privacy is bad, let's just forget about about it. What about aircraft, snailmail and email, the whole internet. Let's go back to live in caves.

    You can't make a rule, a law, or better, in the case of privacy, a right only work for 'the good guys'. Whose responsability would it be to decide who is right? Who are 'the good guys'? Even when you'd know everything about somebody else, considering privacy wouldn't be existing at all (oh horror), you're just one part of the equation.

    A much better way would be to try to find out what's wrong with the world, not only with them but also with us, that people would like to use these rifle scopes... We might be more succesful in trying to take away the reasons for terrorism than in (literally) fighting it; I think in the end, it would end up being much cheaper in many ways.

  17. who is the real enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is wrong with funneling night-sight telescopes to freedom fighters? *America* is the enemy. As soon as it minds its own business,
    all reasons to fight back are gone.

    1. Re:who is the real enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Shut up, you TERRORIST!!!

      And proud of it...

  18. Terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people have gunship, tanks & missiles which they get for free or next to nothing others use stolen credit cards to buy guns and bombs. i dont see the difference. some people use their guns to shoot civilians be they terrorists or not. others shoot from the comfort of a gunship and blow up a whole house or neighbourhood ? whats the difference ?

    1. Re:Terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      Slashdot may be an All-American enterprise, but luckily its readers are not.

  19. He waited a *month* without cancelling his card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what happened that he wasn't aware of a $3k gun order overseas? My bank *does* look for unusual buying patterns, and even called once when they found a potentially fraudulent purchase.

    The reason banks are in business is because they claim to be better than you at managing your money. That's why we let them hold on to it and make interest off of it, or whatever they do. What's the point of a bank if their privacy policy won't let them manage your cash? If that's the case we might as well just put our money in mutual funds and make 8% interest verses 2%.

    Quote:

    "But at some point, some one obtained my credit card number and its expiration date.

    Transaction records reveal that the first attempted fraudulent purchase was made on the same day that I returned to the US. The $3,100 transaction for two Russian-made night-vision rifle scopes and a more high-tech miniature night-vision scope was refused because it exceeded the single-purchase limit on my card.

    Roughly a month later, however, someone submitted a scaled-down version of the same order and it was accepted. According to my credit card company's fraud investigators, the order included one Russian night-vision rifle scope (a similar level of technology as night scopes used with deadly precision by US Marine Corps snipers during the Vietnam War), and a US-built range finder, an instrument that calculates the distance to a potential target."

  20. Slashdot summary totally wrong by smiff · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Once again, Slashdot got the summary totally wrong. From the Slashdot writeup:

    it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us.

    The privacy policy was never intended to protect us. From the article:

    Ccnow says it has a confidentiality agreement with Internet merchants.

    The privacy policy is a contract, and its purpose is to protect the merchant (which in this case, may also be the perpetrator).

    With all due respect, it is rare that I ever see a privacy policy intended to protect me. Usually, privacy policies have so many loopholes, that they do not constitute a privacy policy at all. There general purpose is to protect the merchant from liability. Even if there were a privacy policy to protect the author, that policy would not have impeded the investigation.

    Finally, the article wasn't even about privacy policies. The article was about credit card fraud. The privacy issues just happened to be mentioned in the third-to-last paragraph.

  21. Nothing to see here ... by RWarrior(fobw) · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This isn't news.

    Kids have been stealing credit card numbers for years. Fraud investigations on stolen credit cards have ended when the CC company gets the money back. Story time.

    Someone at my place of employment either stole a Visa debit card from my personal posessions or from my wife's purse, or I left it in an ATM machine, or something. They wiped my checking account clean of well over $3000 plus my overdraft protection, buying beer, shoes, gasoline, and in general living it up and having a good time.

    When I discovered what was going on (because checks started coming back), I reported the card compromised, closed the account, did a police report, the whole bit.

    If it had been stolen from the ATM machine, the security camera might have snapped a shot of the person who took it. In any case, the establishments that took the card might have had security cameras picking up someone committing fraud with my card to the tune of three grand.

    The police took the report and filed it under "Theft Under $100" (because the cash value of the card is less than a dollar), and that's the end of it. My employer didn't care either, because it didn't cost them any money. My bank closed the account after charging back the merchants who took the money.

    The only people who lost here were those merchants. Nobody cares. Write it off as a cost of business.

    The only thing that makes this different is that it happened to two people in the same office. They could have bought rocket launchers, and it wouldn't matter.

    As for the privacy policy ... well, that's CCBill's problem. Someday they'll get slapped with a subpoena they can't fulfill because they don't keep records for the length of time they should, and then they'll be a huge Congresscritter investigation about privacy on the Internet with people storming that there shouldn't be any, and then the EFF and CDT will have to get all worked up and lobby some more. Until then ... business as usual.

    --
    Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
  22. FUD by idiots by jsse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    someone used her account information to send a $1,800 US-made night-vision scope with infrared capability to an address in the United Arab Emirates

    Let me get this straight: this author use two unique instances to conclude that 1) piracy helps terrorists, and 2) Internet merchant helps terrorists.

    This is incredibly idiotic, how could /. even repost such an article written by people as dumb as ox? I'm sure this guy has a collection of Dummy's books on his shelf.

    To author:get a clue! The goods was NOT magically shipped to Middle East electronically, it's sending to a real address physically. The supplier must be well aware what goods is to be shipped to what destination. Just because the paymant is done on the Internet and he concluded that Internet merchant is to be blamed?

    Also I'm not convinced that piracy helps terrorists in any way in this case. If the supplier shipped suspicious goods to problematic countries without question, then they should take full responsiblity.

    We have enough news sites that crowded with editors who have subliminal intelligence and clue. I'm very annoyed that /. even post this article, making people thought /. is standing in ths same line with such news sites.

    1. Re:FUD by idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      and arab emirates AFAIK are usa-supportish..

      and the order could just as well have been made with phone/snailmail i'd guess.

    2. Re:FUD by idiots by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      The goods was NOT magically shipped to Middle East electronically, it's sending to a real address physically. The supplier must be well aware what goods is to be shipped to what destination.

      You know, since it's being shipped to a physical address, maybe we can arrange a special delivery aka Major Ass Kicker, USMC.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  23. Selected quotes from the article by forged · · Score: 2
    • "You will never know who the supplier was," Mr. Anderson said.

    Hahaha, this one sounds right out of The Matrix. Priceless.

    • Meanwhile, the next time I want a warm, crispy waffle, I think I'll just pay cash.

    Duh, who would ordes waffles over the internet. Just drive to the nearest waffles outlet and buy one. Or ask your wife/goflfriend to bake you some :-)

  24. Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You paid for a waffle with a credit card?

  25. Great irony. by JanusFury · · Score: 2

    Aren't night-vision rifle scopes used to violate people's privacy? The night-time privacy of possible targets, that is. Kinda funny that merchant 'privacy' results in the violation of target 'privacy'. Oh, and then there's the whole taking your CCN/exp date thing - It really seems like credit cards are not secure enough. It seems stupid that they aren't more secure. Why don't they just have a system that, say, requires voice authorization for purchases (stores have a phone, net purchases result in a quick 'did you buy this' phone call), or perhaps a unique Purchase Authorization Number (PAN) that is entered directly by the purchaser, so the merchants never see it. As it is now, the merchants have direct access to your CCN, name, and expiration date - everything they need to ring up charges - and all you can do is trust them.

    Credit cards suck, and I don't plan on getting one unless I have to.

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
  26. RTFA by JanusFury · · Score: 1

    He ordered waffles at a food place in Jordan. Read the effing article. How someone as silly as you got a +2 bonus to all posts is beyond me...

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
    1. Re:RTFA by forged · · Score: 2
      RTFA. Now that's interesting.

      Did it occur to you how I got the quotes in the first place ? ;)

    2. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ok then, read the article again and try to understand it this time. He was on an overseas business trip, so he had waffles in the hotel restaurant and paid with his company credit card. So he couldn't "drive down to the waffle shop", or "get his wife to make them". Or I suppose you could tell us more about your waffle-acquisition techniques, but this time make them more applicable to the story in question, viz:
      1. Getting waffles in the Middle East
      2. Arranging for a wife to cook you waffles in a hotel in Jordan
      Or, I guess you could apologise for your stupidity and stop posting incorrect information with a +1 bonus. Your call.
    3. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      apologise for your stupidity and stop posting incorrect information with a +1 bonus.

      Dude, you're talk like if he owed you something.

      If you don't like him, just add him to your foes list and get on with it.

  27. so what.. by Newtlink · · Score: 1

    Christian Science Monitor.. a bedrock of true journalistic integrity..

    this is just weak..

    --
    i hate microsoft.
    1. Re:so what.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cs monitor has won several awards including several pulitzers.

      though christian science is in the name, it is not a religious paper. check it out before you decide anything related to any religion must be bad.

  28. Kids, please by AftanGustur · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Sounds like you didn't RTFA. The problem is that the privacy practices prevented any real investigation of the fraud.

    Instead of shouting back and forth 'it does', 'no it does not', could you please be so kind as to tell the rest of us who *DID* read the article, where it says anything in that direction.
    I'm sorry but the string 'priv' doesn't even appear 1 time in the article.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:Kids, please by fatbastard10101 · · Score: 1

      In the off chance you are not a troll, here is the relevant portion of the article. The company Ccnow.com destroys all transaction records in six months, even in cases of KNOWN FRAUD. For me, who has to save his tax returns for seven years when I wasn't complicit in a crime, this seems odd.

      excerpted below:

      The fraudulent credit card transactions were processed by a company called Ccnow.com, which acts as a middleman for Internet merchants.

      When I contacted the Delaware-based company, an official refused to identify the merchant who had sold "me" the rifle scopes.

      "But this was fraud," I said. "You must be required to maintain business records."

      Lorenzo Anderson, an e-commerce consultant at Ccnow, said the company has a policy of destroying all transaction records after six months - even in instances of known fraud.

      "You will never know who the supplier was," Mr. Anderson said. "You would know if you placed the order yourself. But if you didn't place it yourself you would never know because (in fraud cases) we just give the money back and we end things right there."

      Ccnow says it has a confidentiality agreement with Internet merchants. Such an agreement, in effect, also serves as a firewall that could protect merchants who might either knowingly or unknowingly facilitate fraudulent purchases and shipments.

  29. GOD Given Right by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    As i seem to remember from my school days, God gave us the freedome of choise to commit crimes, it is your right to be a criminal.
    That dosn't mean you take up that right, laws should not be made to stop people commiting crimes, but to punish them when they do. The moral responsibilities of most people will stop them from commiting crimes

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:GOD Given Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      laws should not be made to stop people commiting crimes, but to punish them when they do.

      On the contrary, the punishment is not purely for punishment's sake. That would be childish (like getting your own back) and even sadistic. Some (very few) offenders are locked up for violent crimes to prevent them from doing so again, but most punishments are meant to act as a deterrent.

      The moral responsibilities of most people will stop them from commiting crimes

      I agree with you on this one, though. The reason there are stacks of written laws, and also the original reasoning behind age-old rules similar to the Ten Commandments, is that people need some kind of guidance for their behaviour before they have enough information/maturity to sit down and decide for themselves what's right and wrong. And the reason for a system of punishment is that some people are selfish, and will do what they want even if they consider it to be morally wrong, so some kind of deterrent is required.

    2. Re:GOD Given Right by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 1
      On the contrary, the punishment is not purely for punishment's sake. That would be childish (like getting your own back) and even sadistic. Some (very few) offenders are locked up for violent crimes to prevent them from doing so again, but most punishments are meant to act as a deterrent.

      Maybe so in civilised <g> countries, but I'm sure I recall a poll of (US-)americans in which a majority said they thought the primary purpose of the justice system was (or should be) "retribution". Sad.

    3. Re:GOD Given Right by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatly most punishments are childish and sadistic and don't make any attempts to show the criminal the error of there ways.

      I don't aggree with the corrent system at all, so i don't report crimes if they happen, even if they happen to me. I try to think of why the crime was commited and address that issue. e.g. The criminal felt or was in poverty.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  30. Search Warrant by nuggz · · Score: 1

    Why should a company have to turn records over to you? If they were important a search warrant would simply override there little don't tell policy.

    Additionally, night vision scopes aren't all that high tech anymore, this technology is widely available on video cameras.

    If they can just destroy records after a few months, night vision scopes must not be a restricted/controlled item, or else they would hold onto the records longer, and they wouldn't ship them without a signature.

    This article is just trolling.

  31. The problem with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that people live. Finally i got it. Took me a while, but i undestand your culture (?) now.
    They talk, you want to hear, you talk you want privacy, they say, you have the right to disagree, you say, they are idiots if they are not persuaded, they shrink, you feel they are threaded from extinction, they grow they monopilize, they think, they produce illegal encryption algorithms, they don't think, you are worried that you are not evolving.
    Why don't you nuke everyone, including you? It will solve many of your problems, and slashdot will no longer need a huge db storage for all these silly articles.

  32. Data Quality by CaptainZapp · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From what I understand the authorization systems (specifically in the US) suck shit!

    From a data processing pov it would be incredible hard to implement, specifically based on current systems.

    True story: MCI was not able to authorize a 10$ purchase via the phone on my non-us credit card. They wanted a zip code. No zip-code no authorization. Now, if the cc authorization systems really rely on 5 digit zip codes in order to authorize a 10 dollar purchase it's beyond my comprehension just how much those systems must suck.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:Data Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They wanted a zip code. No zip-code no authorization.

      "90210" is a zipcode that you can probably remember. Why not use "90210" for ALL your zipcode needs!
    2. Re:Data Quality by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      It will come up "out of area" on the bill, and the credit card co will launch an investigation when the server can't synch it up with a valid zip code.

      Of course nothing would happen, but it's amusing how much money gets wasted on that trivial item.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
  33. biased research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anyway there was some sort of bias in determining this, due to the fact it's the Christian Science Report? How about hypocrisy?

    No, i'm not offending Christians..

  34. DON'T BELIEVE THIS CRAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Banks and credit card companies maintain the details for 6 years. They are very interested in fraudulent transactions, even after the money is refunded.

    Credit card billing companies do not throw away the results after 6 months. THEY HAVE TO KEEP IT FOR 6 YEARS FOR THEIR OWN TAXES!!
    What do you think, that when the tax man comes, they don't have the records?

    I have real difficulty with the hole story. He knows what equipment was bought and what name it was shipped under but not the vendor?

    Its a bogus MADE UP STORY from a bored journalist trying to make up an interesting piece of FICTION.

    1. Re:DON'T BELIEVE THIS CRAP by greymond · · Score: 1

      i did feel that his whole "i called the FBI and they did nothing" attittude was a little sketch - but on the 6 years record thing - we do that in the states - but "other" places - like the backass middle east dont have to keep shit if they dont want to - and for a credit card company to have a fraud for only 3grand isnt enough of a dent to make uncle sam take a second look.

  35. Mod parent up! by Spurion · · Score: 1

    I wish more people would realise this...

    --
    Any sufficiently self-referential snowcloned .sig is indistinguishable from nonsense.
  36. And in other Credit Card News... by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    People are watching pirated movies over the Internet, after giving their credit card number to a website in Iran.

    Hmmm. $1 for a movie, extra for the night-scope to go?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:And in other Credit Card News... by kawika · · Score: 1

      And why is this modded "Funny"? In another couple of months when we start to hear about the fraud, come back and change it to insightful.

      Given the cost of running a server farm and streaming a movie's worth of bandwidth I have to wonder whether getting the credit card for fraud wasn't the whole point all along.

    2. Re:And in other Credit Card News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would suck if the website stole credit card information.

      Usually, such one-dollar transactions are a warning sign for credit card companies that monitor their transaction input. A one-dollar transaction on the internet may very well be a credit card fraudster testing if the card information he got actually works.

      So, rather than these small transactions being the testing transactions, these small transactions would the point of compromise. Hmmm.

    3. Re:And in other Credit Card News... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      You got your wish. Someone modded it down as over-rated, and someone modded it up as insightful. $DEITY I love mod-fights!

      And yes, I am one of those people who has Slashdot email me on reply/mod, has email always on (15 min scan), and my "You've got mail!" is "I'm the Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight! Bwahahaha!". I have stop off at the Life Store someday...

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  37. French laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey are you French? Can you explain why the French government doesn't let people use encryption? Surely people should be allowed to write private messages to each other if they aren't committing any crimes or conspiring to commit a crime.

    1. Re:French laws by lfourrier · · Score: 1

      update your bookmarks, encription is legal for a few years

  38. Re:So, When does somebody actually reveal the trut by lysacor · · Score: 1

    Really, do you honestly think that there is any credence in that particular comment.

    Sure there are a lot of conspiracies that have subverted many different people's and cultures I will admit, but to defend a regime who may possibly oppress it's people... and give it false pretenses in which to believe their lies... is like going with the Big Brother approach really... you look at it and you see everything that is said, is reversed, and everything that was, has been overtly removed, I am sorry but dictators who refuse to give their power back to the people deserve exactly what they get, subversion, not terrorism... if we were terrorists then we would deserve the bullets in our skulls... but we are not and the organizations that work to protect us, do the best they can given on the situation.

    and if you want to reveal the "truth" I would suggest actually bringing some hard evidence to the table.

  39. Article's Real Issue by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Informative
    Its pretty hard to find something worthy of discussion in this article. Lets cut throught the fluff real quick:
    1. Freud is being used to purchase weapons - hello and welcome to the world of gunrunning. You were thinking that the weapons seen in civilian hands on CNN were purchased at the Wal-Mart in Al Kars?
    2. Two reporters from the same newspaper get their card info lifted at the same restaurant - same racket is ran in the US on occasion. No mysterious conspiracy there.
    3. Terrorism might involve crime - terrorism IS crime... or at least was according to US Military doctrine. At least, until the War on Terrorism.
    4. The FBI didn't jump on the opportunity to track down a set of night scopes headed for Saudi Arabia - those involved with the security of US citizens and forces in the Middle East are probably rather resigned to the fact that terrorist forces in the area already have access to such equipment. They might have one lead that could eventually uncover something, but hardly drop-everything-else valuable. Its likely a dead-end.
    5. ccnow, identified as the "vendor", wouldn't give the reporter details citing privacy policy - amazing, an absolute stranger on the phone claiming some connection to a transaction can't get details? Its obviously a front!

    Actually, the ccnow bit might be the only interesting piece of the entire article. The fact that the reporter couldn't get information is probably a good sign that the policy is actually being followed as promised. But it hardly means the information is not available to appropriate parties. CCNow's privacy statement reads in part:

    We treat this customer information as private and confidential, and we will not disclose this information to other individuals or organizations unless required by law.

    There is more detail in their client agreement which notes in Section 7 (emphasis mine):

    While CCNow generally treats Client and Customer information as private and confidential, including contact information (name and address), personal data, sales data, product data, credit-card information, and E-mail addresses, Client agrees that CCNow may, without notice to Client, divulge or share any Client or Customer information with law enforcement or regulatory authorities in response to a valid subpoena, court order, or other similar order issued by any law enforcement official, regulatory official or any Federal or governmental agent or body of the United States or of International Countries. Client agrees to deliver, acknowledge, execute or produce any documents, information, instruments, data (financial or otherwise) or certificates, and to cooperate and do such other acts and things as may be required by law, or as may be reasonably necessary for the compliance with the requirements of any federal, state, local or international law, or any regulations of any governmental agency or authority.

    So really - what we have is another non-issue. If / when the FBI, CIA, or other lawfull agency makes the appropriate request for this information, CCNow will apparently present it (and furthermore requires their clients to also comply with such requests). The privacy policy is not inhibiting this case at all, despite the reporters horrified whispers and hand-wringing over waffles, weapons, and Al Qaeda.
    1. Re:Article's Real Issue by forkboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Freud is being used to purchase weapons - hello and welcome to the world of gunrunning

      You know, sometimes an M-16 is just an M-16.

      There's another famous psychiatrist who was into terrorism, too...does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    2. Re:Article's Real Issue by wannabe · · Score: 2

      I agree with the above poster about the lack of a real story here. I must comment though for the clueless:

      Night Vision Scopes are not weapons in and of themselves.

      Unless the buyer takes the scope and bludgeons someone to death with it, it is not a weapon by itself.

      Night Vision is not a controlled substance or technology. Most countries with a military now have night vision. We, the United States, are not the sole holder of that dreadful technology.

      Lastly, at $1800 US, this is not state of the art night vision, I would guess it to be about 10 year old or more technology.

      --
      "Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
    3. Re:Article's Real Issue by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      ...chalk it up to a fraudian slip.

    4. Re:Article's Real Issue by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      Night Vision Scopes are not weapons in and of themselves.

      ...

      Night Vision is not a controlled substance or technology. Most countries with a military now have night vision. We, the United States, are not the sole holder of that dreadful technology.


      Two excellent points.


      But at the same time, I don't think its too much of a jump to expect military-grade equipment being collected for militaristic purposes when they are being imported to such an unstable area of the world. The eventual buyer could be an enthusiast or collector. But considering the market, its unlikely.


      The other interesting point is the nationality of the devices in question. Soviet surplus, it would seem. Old, but effective enough. And cheap. And readily available. At the fall of the Berlin Wall, I had friends who would drive in to Berlin to buy Soviet military hardware; clothes, insignia, firearms, and other equipment (grenades could be had rather cheaply too, but we weren't interested). This equipment is obviously available from plenty of sources throughout the world.


      The fact that we are dealing with only night-vision scopes, items that are commonly available, does a lot to show why the FBI might not be overly concerned about this case.

  40. Sheeple won't believe the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but who's in charge of all those groups and people? THOSE are the really dangerous ones. Is it the Illuminati? The Greys? Why is the eye-in-the-pyramid on the back of the US dollar bill? THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT!

  41. Re:If you eat waffles, you might supports Terroris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of Belgium...

    Belgium allows prosecution of crimes against human rights commited anywhere in the world. Well somebody wanted to see Sharon brought to justice for some minor massacres in Lebanon so now he can't go to Belgium.

    I'm sure this makes Belgium a terrorist country if you see it the American Way(TM). So I'm sure the rest of us in the EU are counted as terrorists too just to be on the safe side.

    AC
    (terrorist)

  42. Re:He waited a *month* without cancelling his card by joss · · Score: 2

    > The reason banks are in business is because they claim to be better than you at managing your money

    Nah, that's not it. The reason banks are in business is that they (temporarily) invent money. It's kind of weird, but look up what fractional reserve banking means some time. When you write a check, you're really using a form of currency created by banks. Money needs to be invented constantly and in current system this is done by banks.

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  43. Re:MOD ARTICLE UP!@!@$! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck I am just in awe of your trolling ability!

    Troll on dude!

  44. Similarly, one could say: by karji · · Score: 1

    > All I wanted was a warm, crispy waffle. But I

    > ended up sending a night-vision rifle scope to

    > some unidentified criminal in Saudi Arabia.

    Similarly, one could say: All I wanted was a warm, crispy waffle, but I ended up paying for Turkey's attack helicopters used for human rights violation.

  45. Us? by mqduck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."

    Ya know, I find that comment a bit disturbing. And not just because of the obvious reason that it appears to support limiting privacy (further). I hope I don't sound like one a them trolls, but honestly, while the "Middle Eastern terrorists" that the White House likes to talk so much about are obviously engaging in activities that are immoral as a whole (death and destruction), I DO agree with them that the "us" you try to speak of, the "us" that isn't really inclusive of us at all, but of the rich and powerful that control this nation, and others, need a serious ass-whooping.

    To put it another way, while I will agree with anybody who calls a terrorist bad (not "evil") no matter what his or her motives are, I will also say that I am in full support of the society that those "Middle Eastern terrorists" grew out of.

    I think it's really just a matter of looking at who the real enemies are.

    -Jeff

    --
    Property is theft.
  46. Oh no! by kwik_mart · · Score: 1

    Uh oh! Terrorists are now getting into carding! Next they'll start stealing our k0d3z!!@#!

  47. Racism by smutt · · Score: 1

    If some scam artist ordered a rifle scope with a stolen credit card in the US, would you assume he was a terrorist? Obviously anyone who owns a gun in the middle east MUST be a terrorist.

    --
    The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
    1. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't want to defend the writer, but the article mentioned a colleague also went to the same hotel and has the same thing happen. The chances of two people from the same news agency getting very similar/almost identicle charges does suggest a large scale operation.

      Now whether its some arms dealer, terrorists, sicko with night vision fetish, or perverts using night vision to peek through windows we'll probably never know. I could see some young kids buying night vision goggles to peek at hot chicks. Having it happen twice could mean the poor guy got too excited and broke the first one. On the otherhand, it could be an organized operation.

  48. Not the FBIs problem? by ClickNMix · · Score: 1

    Not been american, but watching another of the X-files etc to think I know enought...

    Given that the offence took place in Amman, isnt it in the scope of the CIA, rather then the FBI who the guy contacted while writing the article...

    Or am I just nit picking?

    --
    I saw the light at the end of the tunnel... But it was just someone with a flashlight bringing more work.
  49. It's just a night-vision scope, folks! by shoppa · · Score: 2
    The way the CSM article was written you'd think that a night-vision scope was the moral equivalent of a cubic foot of weaponized anthrax or a backpack nuke.

    The most dangerous thing you can do with a night vision scope is hit someone over the head with it.

    With sensationalistic journalism like this, baby monitors become spy-killing machines and those X10 cameras are automatically associated with sexual predators. It's a slippery slope that I do not want us to go down!

    1. Re:It's just a night-vision scope, folks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With sensationalistic journalism like this, ... X10 cameras are automatically associated with sexual predators.

      Actually I think it's X10's own advertising that causes those associations.

  50. Can't have it both ways by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

    Here we have an artice that's, basically, saying "Lack of data retention is bad. It helps terrorists."
    Four articles further down the front page, we have an article critising EU data renention policies, on the grounds that it's a privacy breach to force companies to retain data. (From the summary - "[it's] so that law enforcement can go data-mining.")
    Look, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either don't enforce data retention, and accept that data you would like to have access to will sometimes be lost, or you force data retention and accept that you might lose a bit of privacy as a result. (But hey, it's to stop terrorism, so it must be OK, right?)

  51. FUD by idiots == Troll by afxgrin · · Score: 2

    hence why this entire article seems like a giant troll.

    if I wanted to rip that guy off I easily could, as long as I worked at any major retail store that he entered.

    While I worked for a major electronics retailer in Canada, on the receipt your CC number and expiration date was printed onto it. As well as full name, address, phone number which can lead to lots of other information. Hopefully I talked him into applying for our credit card - then I would obtain much more juicy information like social security numbers, the bank he deals with and his income.

    The problem here is, the purchaser managed to place an order for a different shipping address. Many online companies force the purchase made through them to go to the billing address, or a credit card company approved shipping address. (You need to call your CC company up and ask them to add a special shipping address, and they request LOTS and LOTS of info from you ... )

    Again, this article is just a troll .....

    Is it just me - or is the Author's experience not all that believable? Something seriously is wrong with that article.

  52. as everything in life.. by Lisias · · Score: 0
    "it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."
    Privacy, as any other instrument (legal, tangible or abstract), is a tool as any other one.

    You can build a house with a hammer, or kill your parents with one. Even a pencil can be harmfull.

    What makes the difference is the people behind the tools.

    --
    Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  53. Re:If you eat waffles, you might supports Terroris by aderuwe · · Score: 1
    I'm sure this makes Belgium a terrorist country if you see it the American Way(TM). So I'm sure the rest of us in the EU are counted as terrorists too just to be on the safe side.
    Haha, funniest thing I heard all day! ;)
  54. Who cares? by Fefe · · Score: 1
    The fraud was detected, the guy didn't lose any money, and there are laws that prohibit the vendor from shipping the war equipment to "rogue states". If the vendor shipped the night vision stuff to the United Arab Emirates, he lost his money and won't do it again. If he didn't, what's the problem?


    Credit card fraud happens all the time. It's unavoidable. It's a tradeoff between less hassle and more security when paying. We chose less hassle, so we collectively pay the insurance and investigation. Nobody got hurt, the fraud didn't cost the guy any money. What's the outrage?

  55. God is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprisingly, they forget to mention that most terrorism is done in "Gods Name" - which ever name the terrorist organisation's religion gives to their diety. Obviously, we need to pass a law to outlaw religion...

  56. eagh by ferukelspugel · · Score: 1

    eagh!!!! if you advocate loosing your privacy you deserve all the terrorisim the gov will give you.. re:You don't say... agree wholeheartedly

  57. My privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title suggests that _my_ privacy is being used against me. That would be an interesting topic: how my anonymity can harm me.

    But no, it's the obvious tale of criminal activity cloaked by privacy; news?

  58. Well Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the same argument that law enforcement makes as they creep closer to Gestapo'ism

  59. Liberty v. Security by milo_Gwalthny · · Score: 2

    Liberty, security. Liberty, security.

    I think we know that freedom comes with a price: less security. Security comes with a price too: less freedom.

    In the US, this idea was a commonplace before the Revolution. Anybody have any idea as to its earlier origins? (I'm sure it was bandied about during the English Civil War.)

    --
    Milo
  60. Re:If you eat waffles, you might supports Terroris by hndrcks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Exactly how do you quantify a "minor massacre"?

    --
    Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
  61. There's at least some truth to the theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...as we backed the Taliban earlier on for that very reason. As for now, I can't say.

  62. Typical slashdot by swagr · · Score: 2

    Typical Slashdot readers will be the first to point out that you're not a criminal and shouldn't be labeled one until you commit the crime.

    Aren't people allowed to buy a rifle scope without it being your business?

    --

    -... --- .-. . -.. ..--..
    1. Re:Typical slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't people allowed to buy a rifle scope without it being your business?

      Certainly! But if they do it with my credit card number then it better be my business! Hell, if they buy a pack of gum on my cc it is my business thank you!

  63. A couple of points... by dethlejd · · Score: 1

    1. Is it not the responsibility of the credit card company (which is apparently unknown in this instance), not the credit card processing entity (ccnow.com) to verify that the billing address is the same as the shipping address? I have, on a number of occasions, specifically had to call my credit card company and authorize shipment to locations other than my billing address. This has even been bothersome at points, but I understand the reasons that the CC companies require this. I'd like to think that MasterCard would raise some flag when Bob, from Alabama, wants to send anything to the United Arab Emirates.

    2. It is the responsibilty of the vendor (also unknown, but there are plenty of examples out there) to make sure that certain types of merchandise (e.g. cryptographic hardware and software to Lybia, Anthrax Spores to North Korea, >10 round magazines to California) do not violate state and federal regulations. AFAICT, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are not on the "technology proscribed list". Here is an excellent starting point for further investigation.

    3. I suspect, but cannot prove, that if an Al Qaeda terrorist wished to procure a night vision scope for his Druganov sniper rifle, he could order up a crate-full from his local ex-KGB contact and have it air-dropped from a AN-22 on the "Go Away" mat in front of his cave entrance. Funny, I'm sure, but not without a grain of truth.

    4. It's also important to know that, fundamentally, this "night vision scope" is neither a weapon (unto itself), nor particularly effective, as it is both surplus, and Russian made. Not to slight the proven fantastic ability of the manufacturing capacity of the former Soviet state (they did make millions of highly usable and portable AK-47s and their variants), but as surplus "electronics" equipment, their shelf life is probably somewhat suspect. Plus, the batteries are a bitch to get from Radio Shack.

    All in all, I'm sure that something untoward is going on here. Someone got their CC# pilfered, probably the same way teenagers in the US lift card numbers from transactions at Applebees. Whether or not something more sinister is afoot, remains to be seen. I would, however, take a closer look at who was working at the Amman, Jordan IHOP that morning, and see what they were up to.

    1. Re:A couple of points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I suspect, but cannot prove, that if an Al Qaeda terrorist wished to procure a night vision scope for his Druganov sniper rifle, he could order up a crate-full from his local ex-KGB contact and have it air-dropped from a AN-22 on the "Go Away" mat in front of his cave entrance. Funny, I'm sure, but not without a grain of truth.

      What if the Al Qaeda guys wanted some surface to air missiles? Could they just call up the CIA and get some delivered? Oh that's right, the CIA claims to be "no longer supporting the Taliban". Or the Mujahadeen. Or Al Qaeda, whatever they are calling themselves this year. Don't try to shift the blame onto the Russians, it was the CIA that shipped the weapons in there.
    2. Re:A couple of points... by dethlejd · · Score: 1
      I hate to note this, but I very RARELY (as in never) see one of these suspected terrorists toting around an M-16 or an FN/FAL. UBL himself seems to be rather fond of the AK Shorty with the Krinkov flash supressor. Why doesn't he carry around a CAR-15? He's certainly seems enamored with US camouflage and Seiko watches and Motorola FRS radios. The CIA shipped in Stinger SAMs to support the Mujahadeen "freedom fighters" in their fight against Soviet aggression against a soverign state. The soviets (and their puppet states, as well as the Chinese. Let's be fair) exported thousands, if not millions of tons of weapons, explosives and ammunition to terrorist organizations around the world. Where do you think all that SEMTEX is coming from that gets strapped to a 16-year-old Palastinian girl and walked into a pizza parlor? The volumes just don't match.

      You can argue all you want that a terrorist is a freedom fighter. Here's my stand. If you, as a civilian, wage an aggressive campaign against the military or police forces of the country that you call home, you are a freedom fighter. If you wage an aggressive battle against the fellow civilians of a country that you are a citizen of, you are a criminal. If you wage battle against the military of another country that is occupying your country, you are a partisan. If you attack the military forces of another country, you are a mercenary. If you attack the civilians of another country, you are a terrorist.

      None of this implies "right or wrong". The US waged a terrorist campaign against the civilian populations of both Germany and Japan during the second world war. The indiscriminate bombing of civilian population centers was evil and corrupt, and quite frankly, did little to stop that war (well, with the notable exception of the vaporizing of two Japanese cities). As to whether or not it was right or wrong, who can say?

      I'm not trying to defend the US. Hell, They've screwed over just as many people as the next government, but let me ask you this: Did the Russians institute a "Marshall Zhukov Plan" in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan or Vietnam after they were done "doing their thing?". Did they provide humanitarian aid to the oppressed of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Serbia or Croatia? Did they play nice with the Don Cossacks, whose only fault was to have been occupied by those nasty Germans? Did they get fucked by the Somali's while trying to stave off starvation among the general population? Don't go saying that the CIA was the the group of folks that mucked up Afghanistan because they "shipped the weapons in there".

      Furthermore, I don't know of a single instance where the Stinger was used against any other taget than a Soviet Hind-D attack helicopter. Usually the same helicopters that were delivering death and destruction from on high and Soviet Spetznaz forces to poison ground water sources and drop off booby trapped baby-dolls, and wontonly decimate whole afghan communities.

  64. At long last! by GMontag · · Score: 2

    I hope the parent gets modded up, it is the only clueful post on this story about old-fashioned credit card fraud.

    BTW, all of you folks rambling on about what rights the government should have might want to look at the US Constitution. The feds have NO RIGHTS. The federal government has powers and authority. The People and the States have all of the rights.

  65. Re:So, When does somebody actually reveal the trut by Smallest · · Score: 1

    There's a multi-page article on Salon right now that maybe you should take a few minutes to read.

    -c

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
  66. no, no no no no.. by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

    Privacy doesnt "WORK" against us. I suppose in some ways it can be "USED" against us, in the same way that someone could use the sailboat that gives me months of pleasure every year to run down a dolphin or something. Rules against privacy are *active* attempts to take something important away from us, in that way, it WORKS against us. Privacy-> Works FOR us, can be USED against us. Anti-Privacy-> WORKS AGAINST us, USED AGAINST US.

    --
    Why stick up for big business?
  67. Captain Obvious to the rescue by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    "Even if these are isolated incidents, it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."

    Well, at least somebody's noting it and not just jumping on the privacy bandwagon blindly, chanting "Priavcy! Privacy! Privacy!" It should be obvious, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that the privacy they so feverently wage holy wars for is a double edged sword. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Everybody loves privacy. Until you find out that your local chapter of Jihads R Us has been thriving under the same policy and cooking up plans to slaughter your peoples wholesale. Then, when those same privacy fanatics scream "FIND THOSE TERRORISTS!", ultimate irony will set in as they realize their government can't help them because it would be violating all the privacy acts these people wish existed. I'm not advocating total government oversight, but some people out there need to buy a bottle perspective. What protects you, protects them.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  68. not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that nefarious types unquestionably benefit due to privacy and civil rights legislation is not exactly news, is it? In fact you can find any number of numbnuts politicians on either side of the fence routinely making political hay basically with the argument that the ONLY effect of the right to freedom from, for example, search and seizure is the protection of criminals. A year ago the primary justification for reducing our privacy and protection from the scrutiny of law was the terrible scourge of drugs, today of course it has been replaced with the terrible scourge of terrorism. You can see cops on shows like COPS using the basic premise on hapless motorists... "Is there anything illegal in this car? Well then you don't mind if I take a look do you?"

  69. Freedom promotes Terrorism by 3seas · · Score: 2

    Life causes death

    what goes up must come down

    Open source software enables cacking security

    Locks are for honesty people

    What we make, we can break

    etc..

    It's not about this thing or that thing being bad, it's about people and how they use things to be bad.

    Maybe automobiles and trucks should be added to the list of terrorist tools that should be ban, along with anything that can be use to make a bomb.

    In fact, why don't we just make up a list of all things that can be used to kill.....Guess that would include water....

    But it's really about people, what they do, and most important WHY?

    Like what is terrorist reason to do bad things?

    Or Like why was a trillion dollar bet allowed to happen? Hmmmm, isn't Indonesia like 80% or better muslin?

    And Why is military spending not being used to address and remove reasons to be a terrorist or do bad things? Certainly it cost us all alot more backing up wrongful world financial manipulations with guns, then it would in being more productive with such military labeled finances.

    So yeah, on the list of things that can be used for terrorist act, we really do have to add the world militaries, as common sence will tell anyone that the majority of people living on this planet don't want war but only to live a happy and healthy life.

    It's just the few creating wars and bad things, spending huges amount of money that can be far better spent.

  70. Where is customs? by slow_flight · · Score: 2

    Let me get this straight:

    - Customs is able to stop the delivery of tools that MIGHT be used to hack Nintendo games
    - Customs is UNABLE to stop the shipment of night vision equipment to terrorist harboring nations where it WILL be used to commit violent crimes

    Yeah, we've got our priorities straight.

    --

    Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
    1. Re:Where is customs? by f00zbll · · Score: 1
      Not to be synical or trollish, but that's because big corporation is greasing the politicians to enforce their interests. Some politicians believe war is good and feel it's not preventable. Therefore, the only thing they can do is create jobs either artifically or through bad legislation. Confiscating "illegal" products creates jobs by increasing the number of staff required to police the policy and temporarily increasing corporate profits. Allowing military equipment to slip through allows wars to happen, which mean men and women are taken out of the work force, there by opening up positions and employing more citizens. In the end, the politicians gain more from acting on the interests of corporations.

      Sure this argument has flaws, but it might not be too far from the truth.

    2. Re:Where is customs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight:

      Well, you are not even close right now, but if you learn some reading skills as a compliment to your writing skills you might have a chance at "getting it straight".

  71. Have we already lost? by rben · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can have freedom or security. Choosing freedom means that you accept a certain amount of risk in order to maintain that freedom. One of our founding fathers (Too my shame I can't remember which one) said that those who are willing to trade freedom for safety deserve neither one.

    Since 9/11 we have allowed our government to reduce our personal freedoms in exchange for a promise of greater security.

    Stories like this one are important, since they show that there is a cost for freedom, it shouldn't be taken for granted. The events of 9/11 were part of that cost as well.

    By allowing legislation like the Patriot Act to pass without fighting it lots of Americans have given tacit approval to the destruction of the country that I love.

    Osama bin Ladin says he wants to destroy this country. Ironically, we seem to be doing the job for him. More and more I see people saying that we have to accept these new restrictions on our privacy.

    The real war is not one of terrorism and counter-terrorism, it's a war of ideals and information. The men who attacked our country did so because they had been taught that the U.S. is a great source of evil in the world. We need to find ways to teach people what our country is really about.

    We also have to accept responsibility for our mistakes and policy failings.

    So yes, there is always a risk that our freedoms can be used against us. Sometimes it's high, but do we really want to trade it away?

    --

    -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
    www.ra

    1. Re:Have we already lost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We need to find ways to teach people what our country is really about.


      Ummm.... on behalf of all the non-amerikans in the world, please do not! We do not need to see any more of your "patriot" missiles, your "hercules" fighters, your "Apache" helicopters, uranium-tipped bullets, CIA-covert-ops, drug smuggling, coups d'etat, etc. etc.

      What the world really needs is for Amerika to change what it's all about. I know a lot of your citizens are good people. It's high time you take back control of your government and military.


  72. Scott said it didn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Scott McNealy of Sun say "You have no privacy. Get over it"?

    Well, have HIM find these merchants of terror!!

  73. Government steals to buy guns as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I paid about 7K in taxes last year; given the donations to Israel as part of the budget, I bought approximately 2 clips of ammunition and a flack jacket for one of their soldiers. No doubt the bullets I bought killed palestinians. Do you think that the _majority_ of the american public would have voted for this... I don't think so. So, this is out right corporate theft, they buy my congressman fair and square, and my congressman gives my money to buy guns for Israel.

  74. Re:Better over there than here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey what are you, a TERRORIST? Shut up!

  75. Confusion by Grax · · Score: 2

    Privacy laws are there to protect consumers, not vendors. Vendors are not entitled to have their identities obscured. The system doesn't work that way.

    This isn't really a privacy issue so much. Every business keeps their records for a limited amount of time and then gets rid of them. 6 months is kinda short and if we want to take issue with that and force them to keep transaction records longer I'm OK with that. I still don't see any privacy issues.

  76. Ummm... by jjsjeff · · Score: 1

    That story was weak. Credit card fraud happens. It's happened to me. Does it matter more since it is going to *gasp* Ter-ruh (as Bush would say)?

    -and-

    Christianity and Science are mutually exclusive. Please make the appropriate note in your records.

    Mod on moderator man!

    1. Re:Ummm... by subgeek · · Score: 1

      Christianity and Science are mutually exclusive.

      not all christians reject things like evolution. science has not disproven the existence of a deity.

      albert einstein had a positve attitude toward relition and even used to visit christian science churches. i think he qualifies as a scientist, possibly one with deeper insight into science and its nature than all slashdot readers.

      Einstein was quoted as saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

      crap, there went all of my karma. i just admitted to my fellow geeks that i believe in God.

      --
      you probably shouldn't have read this.
  77. Re:So, When does somebody actually reveal the trut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

    Admittedly, it sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory with no credibility...the US GOVERNMENT!!??

    It does, however, have links to credible external news sites (like the BBC) for stories that are thought-provoking, to say the least.

    For example: The US had plans in place to invade Afghanistan prior to the events of 9/11, according to a BBC story...

    (email me at norshire at aol dot com if you want me to find it for you)

  78. To begin with by WildBeast · · Score: 2

    Maybe the government should stop selling its weapons to weird countries

  79. Someone please mod parent down, clueless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did not know that the UAE ustoms service was doing that.

    "Within a few weeks, someone used her account information to send a $1,800 US-made night-vision scope with infrared capability to an address in the United Arab Emirates."

    Noplace in the article does it say where the shipments came from, although I am sure someone of your intellect will confuse location of manufacture with the shipping point for these transactions.

    Noplace in the article does it say these things were imported into the US nor shipped from the US for these transactions.

    You did read the article right? Nobody would make blanket accusations like you did without reading the article would they?

    Someone please mod parent down, clueless.

  80. Read the article!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The author doesn't say that the problem is the protection of the consumer's privacy... the problem is that the weapons dealer's identity has been kept private by a middle man, even from the "purchaser!"

    Those are beasts of very different colors! The middle man's business seems very shady, and of very little legitimate value.

  81. Internet movie rentals... by hlh_nospam · · Score: 1

    Note that this recent slashdot story, Live From Iran, Film88 is about a company that wants you to send your credit card to a company in Iran to rent movies over the internet.

    Why go to all the trouble of getting information off of credit card slips from a restaurant in Amman, when you can just get folks who are looking for cheap movies (or other items) to send you that information over the internet?

    Identity theft is probably the major source of funding for terrorism now. Think about that the next time you order a pirated movie or some online porn.

  82. I feel safer already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If police watched everyone of us all the time there would never be any crime, except by the police. Oh, and the trains would run on time. This article is itself flamebait trolling.

  83. The right to know what's done with your name by wytcld · · Score: 2

    The posts modded at 3 and up just now make no mention of what for me is the central point here:

    The purchase was made with the stolen identity of the reporter. Therefore the right to privacy to be protected is the reporter's own. Therefore he should have full rights to the details of the transaction. Period. Any party withholding those details is complicit in the theft of his identity, and aiding a criminal. They should go to jail, for a long time.

    Ran into a similar situation with AOL a few months back. Someone stole a credit card number of a housemate to buy a bunch of porno and sign up for an AOL account. AOL absolutely refused to provide any information - it required redundant effort just to get them to cancel the account and stop trying to collect on it. Why should someone who has stolen your identity have any right to privacy in what they do with your identity? Is it your identity, or not? Why should any corporation have any right to withhold from you information on what's been done using your own identity? Shouldn't you have an absolute right to full disclosure of all information that can help you protect and defend your own good name?
    ___

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  84. The way credit card transactions work by osolemirnix · · Score: 2

    They are not laundering money. To quote from the article: "Fraud investigators at my credit card company say that since they got their money back they are not interested in further investigation."
    And they're not actively destroying evidence either, I'd assume, they just keep these records for a limited time.

    But all this doesn't matter and here's why:
    If the merchant can't provide a valid customer signature with the credit card info, the entire risk of the transaction is with the merchant. Anyone who ever worked in e-business knows this is standard credit card company policy. They get their money back and it's the merchant who ends up being frauded.

    Which, by coincidence, has lead many online merchants to check the billing address listed with your credit card record, or even stricter only ship to that billing address. Because this info is harder for simple scamsters to obtain (though not impossible, stealing your wallet will do, but then the card is usually blocked completely).

    So the conclusion of this whole lame story is that the merchant of these rifle scopes loses a lot of money because they are not careful enough about their shipping addresses. And they will likely go out of business if they keep this up.

    Big deal. Personally I think they deserve it, for stupidity even more than for helping possible terrorists if you ask me.

    --

    Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
  85. Its... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...called an inconvenience of liberty.

    justingl

  86. Please mod this trolling idiot down too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More advice here.

    You are just as big a knee-jerk idiot as the parent poster. Read before you spew.

    1. Re:Please mod this trolling idiot down too. by f00zbll · · Score: 1
      More advice here [slashdot.org]. You are just as big a knee-jerk idiot as the parent poster. Read before you spew

      Ever hear of a joke :)
      Guess I should have put <sarcasm> around the whole, so idiots like you would realize it was a joke.

  87. How American Justice Works by Silver+Rose · · Score: 1

    This country's justice system was founded on the principle that "it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man." So let's do the math here. Some of us seem to want to punish literally millions of americans (by taking away their priviledge/right to privacy) in order to catch and punish a few hundred men. Good lord, these are sad times we live in.
    Disagree with me, argue all you want, but those are the facts.

  88. give me a break by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This should've been from the 'no shit sherlock' category or the 'captain obvious' category. Any privacy policy can be used for felonious means. It's the same reasoning the US government uses to circumvent any form of personal privacy afforded it's citizens. "If we can't listen to everyone's phone calls, how will we find the terrorists?" type of mentality. Just ask yourself how many more rights you're willing to give up in the name of 'national security' and don't bitch when we have a full-on police state. 1984, here we come.

  89. The problem: CCBill by Animats · · Score: 2
    And iBill, etc. Those companies are basically front ends from businesses too sleazy or incompetent to get their own merchant accounts. CCBill charges 14.5% on each transaction. The normal credit card processing rate is around 3%.

    Getting a real merchant account isn't that hard if you're legitimate. I've done it, and I used Bank of America, not some off-brand "Internet bank". Anybody who's willing to pay 14% instead of 3% is probably doing something suspicious.

  90. night vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are different 'grades' of night vision equipment. The 'Vietnam era night vision technology' scope is of the same 'old' design as the night vision equipment you can buy over-the-counter at any large sporting goods store in the US.

    The newer technology equipment is more closely watched, but still readily available, (and also much more expensive).

  91. Re:So, When does somebody actually reveal the trut by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

    The US has plans to invade the state of Iowa, the country of Japan, and the continent of Aisa.

    I would be significantly disturbed if they *did not* as that is what I pay them taxes to do.

    --
    I live in a giant bucket.
  92. slashdot post != article content by blunte · · Score: 1
    You people bitching about bad journalism need to differentiate between the posting of this article and the content of the article itself.


    The actual article does not say that privacy is being used against the "good" people. It just complains that his path was blocked in his attempt to uncover details about spending on HIS card.


    It also states that the FBI doesn't seem interested in this.


    And for you jackasses who keep saying, "he should have canceled the card after the first ($3100) attempt", well do you think he even knew about that attempt until the second charge came through, a month later?


    I like some of the interesting links on /., but it sucks that 2/3 of the responses to articles articles are negative.


    I personally found it very interesting to read this article, and I learned something (that may have been obvious to plenty of other people), but that is that "fraud" isn't treated as a serious crime, it's just an economic process.

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  93. Re:Better over there than here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why no, are you?

  94. The real issue by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2

    The problem isn't a privacy policy, the problem is CREDIT CARD FRAUD. DUH

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  95. One Man's Terrorist is.... by The_THOMAS · · Score: 1

    One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Fighter. I find a few night vision scopes pale to the importance of continuing to seek effective Internet privacy.

    Mine that FBI !!

    --
    Ya Sure! You Betcha!, The_THOMAS
  96. victimless crimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm not convinced there's really such a thing as a "victimless" crime. take speeding, for example. increased risk of accidents, increased insurance costs across the board, more policemen, etc.

    certainly there are some crimes that have much larger and more direct impact on their "victims" than others, and should be handled proportionately, but almost any personal action has *some* impact on the people/society around the actor.

    (whether a particular action has a positive impact or a "criminal" impact is an entirely different discussion.)

  97. Millitaman helps terrorists!!!!!! by gnovos · · Score: 2

    A militaman in Wisconsin bought a night-scope. While he was at work, terrorists broke into his house and stole it. He is working with the terrorists!!!!!

    This is a non-story. I can't see what it is ever here except to be sensational.

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  98. People get lazy in california by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have the absolute right to the crosswalk and it is heavily enforced in CA, so people stop looking and just go.

    I tell my kids, assume the driver won't stop. EVERY TIME.

    Don't depend on laws to protect you, reject authority and use common sense.

    If the building next to you is blown up, and the authorities stay put, it may be a poor idea, because authorities don't care about individuals, they care about the nebulous society concept.

    My point? In a crosswalk, assume the driver is evil and will run you down for sport. Cross accordingly. Anything other than that is a grave error.

  99. If you respond to this post,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you respond to this post, then the terrorists have already won.

  100. subliminal intelligence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would that be intelligence that influences your behavior without you noticing it's there?
    I'm more prone to subliminal stupidity, myself.