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."
You can use it for your work or you can hit your self on your fingers with it, if you are not careful.
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?
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.
The privacy policy was never intended to protect us. From the article:
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.
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.
"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.
someone used her account information to send a $1,800 US-made night-vision scope with infrared capability to an address in the United Arab Emirates
/. even repost such an article written by people as dumb as ox? I'm sure this guy has a collection of Dummy's books on his shelf.
/. even post this article, making people thought /. is standing in ths same line with such news sites.
Let me get this straight: this author use two unique instances to conclude that 1) piracy helps terrorists, and 2) Internet merchant helps terrorists.
This is incredibly idiotic, how could
To author:get a clue! The goods was NOT magically shipped to Middle East electronically, it's sending to a real address physically. The supplier must be well aware what goods is to be shipped to what destination. Just because the paymant is done on the Internet and he concluded that Internet merchant is to be blamed?
Also I'm not convinced that piracy helps terrorists in any way in this case. If the supplier shipped suspicious goods to problematic countries without question, then they should take full responsiblity.
We have enough news sites that crowded with editors who have subliminal intelligence and clue. I'm very annoyed that
From a data processing pov it would be incredible hard to implement, specifically based on current systems.
True story: MCI was not able to authorize a 10$ 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
Hmmm. $1 for a movie, extra for the night-scope to go?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!