Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using Your Privacy Against You

Posted by timothy on from the guns-butter-and-syrup dept.

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."

7 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!
  2. 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'
  3. 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...

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.