Slashdot Mirror


US Treasury to Post Previously Private Email Addresses Online

An anonymous reader writes "After receiving around 10 thousand comments about a government proceeding and after promising not to reveal personal info from those comments online, the US Treasury department decided to post email addresses of those who commented online. Sounds like they don't want any more comments about government proceedings. The email harvesters are going to have a great time."

339 comments

  1. And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Eyah....TIMMY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a consumer alert from the Federal Trade Commission on why you shouldn't post your email address online... how ironic!

    Maybe people whose address is posted should file a complaint with the FTC against the U.S. Treasury Department. I know, the Treasury dept is technically not a "business" (although it's arguable) but it would be funny if the FTC received tons of complaints because of this.

    --

    It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
    1. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by searleb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's a consumer alert from the Federal Trade Commission on why you shouldn't post your email address online... how ironic!

      Also ironic: the FTC posts their own email address online (uce@ftc.gov) at the bottom of their webpage!

    2. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Also ironic: the FTC posts their own email address online (uce@ftc.gov) at the bottom of their webpage!

      uce@ftc.gov? That's a spamtrap address if I ever saw one!

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. I don't understand why people give out their regular addresses in this day & age. I have a semi-disposable address that I use for giving out to the untrusted public [& a few mailing lists] & only them. If I'm not expecting a reply, then I don't need to monitor or check it.

      Of course, there is always www.spamgourmet.org.

      In the end, I blame the email address owners & that organization.

    4. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      I just did that. Thanks for the great idea. ;-)

    5. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by whittrash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is despicable, all the more so because the article makes it sound as if this is a technical issue, not a privacy issue for them, there are so many posts that they can't keep up with stripping out personal information.

    6. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by javacowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure... you can file a complaint with the FTC. But you must include your email address.

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
    7. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by swv3752 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't this why one has an hotmail address? :)

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    8. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Whats the difference? You still have to wade through it all if any important email is ever comming there.

    9. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Shivaji+Maharaj · · Score: 3, Informative
      No.. that is why you have spamgourmet.com or if you have cash to burn you can buy similar service here.

      Just a pbs work - not affiliated with yahoo or spamgourmet.

      --
      We do not have a history of profitable operations. Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
    10. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by cball2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any entity within the US borders that publicly discloses an agreement, then violates that agreement after the other party has fullfilled its part of the agreement, gives the violated party and each individual involved, the legal recourse to seek DAMAGES, and remedy via punitive fines.

      FTC is inviting multiple LAWSUITS, if not a huge class action suit.

      The public party and each member involved should have a lawyer contact the FTC legal dept about the address to send the lawsuits too....

      --
      karma, hah...
    11. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      That spamgourmet is cool, are there any opensource solutions that will let you do the same thing with your own domain?

    12. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Maybe people whose address is posted should file a
      > complaint with the FTC...

      No. They should file complaints with their Congressmen. If a few thousand do so Treasury will suddenly discover that they have the resources to delete those addresses after all.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    13. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by f0rt0r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you run the mail server for your domain, then practically any SMTP server can perform this service using what are called "aliases". Personnaly, I run my own domain at home and use the open source SMTP server "postfix" running on RedHat 8.0 to handle the sending and receiving of email. The way it works in postfix is you edit the alias file, adding an entry for the throw-away email address followed by the real email address to deliver the email to. After you are done editiing the file, you run the postalias command to update the aliases database ( postfix read the alias.db file and not the text alias file when making email delivery decisions ). After that is done ( takes 2 seconds for me ), any email send to the throw-away address will be forwarded to the real mailbox you specified.

      For people/businesses I work with often, I pretty much keep the alias I gave them on file unless they abuse it ( like sell it or spam it ). Otherwise, will just delete the alias after I am done with it, and then update the database.

      Postfix itself has a nice set of anti-spam tools to restrict who it will receive email from and also who it will forward email for. Again, I restrict sending to computers on my home network by IP/Hostname/From/To addresses and it works very well.

      Sorry for the long post, but I figure too much information is better than not enough. So I hope this answered your question.

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
    14. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by rifter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also ironic: the FTC posts their own email address online (uce@ftc.gov) at the bottom of their webpage!

      uce@ftc.gov? That's a spamtrap address if I ever saw one!

      Yes, it is. In fact, I use that address to sign up for crap somethines when they swear they will not send me spam therefore. Also, the FTC set up that address for people to forward their spam to it for their analysis.

    15. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      That spamgourmet is cool, are there any opensource solutions that will let you do the same thing with your own domain?

      Just get a domain and host it somewhere that will forward all mail to @your-domain-tld to your pop account.

      Then download it all, and filter on the client side.

      This is cheaper and easier than running your own mailserver (I'm paying $12/year for hosting at hostica.com), and doesn't require a host that allows you to run your own mailserver, or a pc that's always on and always connected to the net.

      For any commercial entity, or any mailing list, the address I give them is generally their-domain-name@my-domain.tld. If that address starts getting spam, SpamBayes will start associating that address with spam, and soon will be automatically filtering those messages. I can also use the address in maunally wrutten mail filters, to sort my mail.

    16. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by E8086 · · Score: 1

      hotmail address...isn't that what piracy@M$.com is for?

      --
      F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
    17. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when replying to an email that came via an alias, can you set your mail client to automatically use that alias as the "From:" address?
      Thanks...

    18. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      [disposable addresses] You still have to wade through it all if any important email is ever comming there.

      But for many thing, there will either never be anything important (things which just require an address for no sane reason). Sometimes the important stuff will come only at predictable times (sign up, when you ask for a password reminder, when you have just placed an order etc). Sometimes the important stuff will be in a known format which something like procmail can easily pick out from any spam and forward to your real mailbox (eg mailing lists which put in useful headers).

      Additionally, such email addresses can have limited lifetimes. If you are prepared to unsubscribe and resubscribe to mailing lists every six months, you can limit the time for which harvested addresses are useful to the spammers. Make sure a pointer to your permanent web presence is in your .signature for anyone who wants to get in touch 2 years from now about what you wrote.

      Eg: Set up a real mailbox for each mailing list (fred-bugtraq etc), and one for all mail from websites, shops etc. For each mailinglist, website etc. set up an alias as a disposable address to give them pointed to the real box (alias fred-bugtraq-0401 fred-bugtraq), and every now and again take a look at where spam is comeing to and zap those addresses.

      Not that I do all this:-). Most of my spam comes to a couple of addresses which exist from way back when spam was not a problem and so I didn't hide them, and which I don't want to zap because they would be the way old friends etc occasionally get in contact. Spamprobe and Bogofilter are lifesavers.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    19. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      As you observed - that is entirely down to the client. AFAIK - it is pretty easy to do so with mozilla(temporarily change the from address, and change it back). You could probably mess with the php behind squirrelmail to allow such things to be automatically scripted.. I cant speak for outlook(dont used it).

      The question is, if you configure your client to reply with the alias address - will postfix accept that as a from address? It should - but anyone have any solid info on that.

      I regularly use different aliases on postfix for giving to different organisations... And any who do sell my address will have their name publicly displayed on my site. I already have a list of certain groups who are banned from it in my terms and conditions page.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    20. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Treasury is 51% owner of the WTO/IMF. Who is the US Treasury really owned by? Who calls the shots?

    21. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      I don't know much about US law, but many countries have data protection legislation which would make this kind of thing, i.e. storing unnecessarily, or giving out personal information illegal. In the UK if someone does something like that, I simply email them demanding that they cease and desist at once, or they will be reported for possible prosecution under the Data Protection Act. No-one yet has failed to comply....

      What would be the effect of putting a statement in all emails (e.g. in the sig file) which copyrights the email address? They would have to publish the whole address, not a little bit, so they could not claim it was "fair use". Copyright law seems to be very simple and straightforward to apply, if it can be applied here it would also give the same protection in most countries, not just the US. If you could establish some meaningful value to the address, maybe you could get punitive damages out of every spammer who used it. Now there's a thought....

      IANAL, perhaps those who are might care to expand this idea, it it could be made to work. Lots of us would be very interested.

    22. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rent dns services at easydns.com (their dns plus subscription), which allows me wildcard forwarding of email on my domain. I also give out unique addresses to everyone, but I don't need to add it to a database, I don't need to remove it from a database (if someone violates it, I just filter them straight to the trash in my mailclient), and I don't need to run my own mailserver.

      You are definitely my geek master though, with a setup like that.

    23. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by jqh1 · · Score: 1

      spamgourmet *is* open source -- you can get the code in the "download" section of the website

      --
      who's moderating the meta-moderators?
    24. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If you do that the spam still uses your bandwidth.

      --
    25. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by f0rt0r · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Most of my aliases are used for receive only, for example the alias for my Amazon.com account recieves shipment notifications and order confirmation emails from them, but I never send e-mails to the Amazon.com myself.

      As you pointed out, having to change the "from" address depends on the email client ( script, application, whatever is trying to send out the email the SMTP server ).

      I use Ximian Evolution for sending email, and the "from" aka "reply-to" address is set on an per-account basis. This means I either have to go into the settings for my primary (real) account and change it to show the alias every time, or I have to set up an account ( not a real account, just make Evolution think you have one ) with the alias email address as the "reply-to" setting. This lets me select the alias from a pulldown menu when I am sending out an email message. The downside of the second setup is that when I tell Evolution to receive email via my POP3 server ( QPopper ), it will poll the server for email on the non-existent, alias accounts, which wastes time.

      If someone knows of a decent email client that can accomplish the same thing except with less hassle, please post it here. Pretty please. :)

      I hadn't thought of punishing people who sell the email address by posting their name/contact info on the web. That could catch on and become something of a public "blacklist" database, good idea :)

      Well, I had something else to say. Unfortunatel, I can't remember what it is, and I have to go to work.

      Peace.

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
    26. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      interesting, but wouldnt your free mailbox fill up if you dont check it regurlarly, thus stopping even the forwarding actions?

      on a side note, I wish evolution would say which username it was checking as opposed to simply the mail server, I have a domain with several single purpose emails but all evolution shows when its checking is a bunch of the same server names, hard to know which failed.

    27. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      wouldnt your free mailbox fill up if you dont check it regurlarly, thus stopping even the forwarding actions?

      Pull the mail in with fetchmail, or equivalent, and deliver it to local mailboxes.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    28. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by billstewart · · Score: 1
      Not only that - they're explicitly copying the comments onto their web pages, and if they're too lazy to take the time to cut&paste the non-address parts, they should simply not post the comments at all, or at least only post the fraction of comments for which they're willing to take the time. Better to ignore comments than violate their privacy promises.

      If they want to cop out and say they're too lazy, fine, but saying that they're too lazy and will therefore break their promises gives them their own page in Al Franken's book "Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them". I mean, think of what this will do to their reputation - how will you trust a bunch of tax-collecting vice narcs not to violate your privacy when you're narcing on somebody who might not be paying their liquor taxes? Next thing you know it'll be the Census Bureau that takes the data they promised to keep private for 75 years and gives it to the Army to round up the Japanese on your block. (Oh, wait, they've done that....)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    29. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
      Whats the difference? You still have to wade through it all if any important email is ever comming there.
      Agreed, but @ least you won't have to wade through as much. I look @ the spam problem as something that must be attacked from several points.

      1.) stop all of the spammers
      2.) if #1 has failed, then @ least use secure email server software that validates the sender
      3.) if #2 has failed, then @ least use filters on our own servers
      4.) if #3 has failed, then @ least use filters on our own clients

      There's more that we can do, but that's the gist of it. Having a disposable address, is an implementation of #4. We use that, so that when we aren't expecting anything important, then we can ignore the address completely, never expecting any email. If we don't expect anything important for 30 days, & we get a paltry 10 emails a day, then that's 300 emails that we don't have to wade through. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds like a step in the right direction. As soon as I'm expecting email in that account again, I go & clear out the inbox without looking @ the spam, & I'm ready to go. It's not a clean solution, but it helps.
    30. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
      Isn't this why one has an hotmail address? :)
      :^) Exactly. @ least that's why I have 1. I'm intending to get another disposable address, but this time, I'm intending to make the user name as long as possible using random letters. If the name is 128 characters long, then it becomes extremely difficult to find it with that type of attack where they start with AAAAAAA@wherever.foo. I don't know the name of it, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
    31. Re:And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself here... but I just got a response from the FTC. It was just a generic form letter that said absolutely nothing. Dissapointing that they couldn't even draft a new one for this situation, but I guess we did our best eh?

  2. Brought to you by by panxerox · · Score: 1

    the same people that said they wanted to take all the residents of Mount Carmel alive (unless it was inconvenient or cost to much overtime)

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:Brought to you by by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 0

      So, if I set fire to my house, that's the government's fault?

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    2. Re:Brought to you by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when they find the missing front door of the compound, then you can suggest we were told the truth about the fire. After all, it was over a year before Reno admitted that there were incendiary devices used. Odd, that, wasn't it? The "investigation" focused on a very narrow topic - was it planned murder. They did not ask, and therefore did not find if it was illegal activity.

    3. Re:Brought to you by by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Take off the tin foil hat. The fire started from the inside, when the BATF agents and their vehicles weren't even touching the building.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  3. What's the lesson? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Don't fuck with people who have a lot more power than you.

    It's one to grow on.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:What's the lesson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So you prefer to let them fuck you over?

    2. Re:What's the lesson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, they won't be fucking you over if you don't fuck with them first. Keep a low profile; be nearly invisible.

    3. Re:What's the lesson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      power

      Your pessimism is unwarranted. Read some Jean Baudrillard; power is nothing more than an illusion, and more than that, its an illusion that is over. The mass, with its black hole intensity of gravity, can destroy the illusion of power in an instant.

      Why do you think "fraudsters" like Frank Abignale and Kevin Mitnick get sentences that are longer than those given to murderers? Its because they, through thier actions, reveal the true nature of the social and the illusory nature of power. Power doesnt exist, only deterrence exists.

      Go and read "In The Shadow Of The Silent Majorities". It will completely transform your ideas about government and power.

    4. Re:What's the lesson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The (soon to be) American way.

    5. Re:What's the lesson? by fenix+down · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, then don't fuck with people with a lot more deterrence than you. Either way, you still get 28,000 Viagra spams.

    6. Re:What's the lesson? by Nadsat · · Score: 1

      Not "fucking with people" is a lousy lesson, and violates basic Social Contract aggreements which mark the United States' foundation.

      To not fuck with people implies a revoke of women's suffrage and apartheid-like systems.

      Remember the Spirit of 1776. And 1967! Any of the good years actually. 1517. 1888. 2004!

  4. Re:Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too bad you fail it

  5. The thing is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You post it online, you take your chances. No matter what.

  6. Thanks for nothin' by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aside from the rather obvious gold mine for Spammers that this would provide (thanks to the knuckleheads in the Treasury Department), this is an example of openness in government which could be good except that the problem is that they are breaking a promise. Most disturbing is this little item "we will post comments received on that notice on our Web site in full, including any street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses contained in the comments." It seems that nobody is allowed privacy in this White House administration except GWB and friends.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Thanks for nothin' by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey now, just because you cant afford your own "undisclosed location" dont be player hating our VP.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Thanks for nothin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that nobody is allowed privacy in this White House administration except GWB and friends.

      Well, duh.

    3. Re:Thanks for nothin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Shouldn't that be duh-wah?

    4. Re:Thanks for nothin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It seems that nobody is allowed privacy in this White House administration except GWB and friends

      Dubya
      1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
      Washington DC

      That'll show him!

    5. Re:Thanks for nothin' by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hey now, just because you cant afford your own "undisclosed location" dont be player hating our VP.

      Actually, we have our own little "undisclosed location" just down the road from our VP's "undisclosed location" in Jackson Wyoming. :-)

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    6. Re:Thanks for nothin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush W. George 214-891-3131

    7. Re:Thanks for nothin' by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Doesn't the entire state of Wyoming qualify as an "undisclosed location?"

    8. Re:Thanks for nothin' by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      Stop making up state names!

    9. Re:Thanks for nothin' by kabocox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems that nobody is allowed privacy in this White House administration except GWB and friends.

      O.k. if it came from some one appointed by Bush, I could accept your comment. But come on, you know this more like a PHB said to some underling hey post all these comments on the website. There shouldn't be more than about 20 or 30 comments any way. The underling said sure boss. Then the boss sends the poor underling the thousands of comments. The underling goes ahead and starts edited out personnal information and posting it on the website all manually. I'd say it should take less than 2 weeks to go through do this assignment. After a day or two, the underling's boss comes in and says why aren't you doing your regular job. Underling explains that he or she is still busy at the other task. The boss decides it would be more efficient use of the underling's time to just post all the info on the website with out editing for personal info. 5 minutes latter it is all posted on the website with a short blurb that the personal info was going to be left in there. I can understand blaming alot of things on the head of our government, but come on this is just government business as usual! It could have happened reguardless of who was head of our government. Actually, I think it wouldn't have been that bad for some intern to go through and delete all the personnal info. I think it was a poor decision of some middle manager some where. O.k. it could have been a plot be the evil forces in our government to get your e-mail address, but I just don't buy it this time.

    10. Re:Thanks for nothin' by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      It makes me really glad that I live in the UK. We have laws such as the Data Protection Act. You US citizens need to start giving your politicians a lot of grief over this sort of thing. In a free society, one of the basic freedoms is that people's privacy can be protected. An official, or indeed anyone who did this kind of thing in the course of business, could expect a prison sentence, or at least a very large fine.

      Maybe you would have been better off had you remained as a British Colony, you would not have this kind of governmental abuse. (But, I freely admit that you would have other problems, such as being ruled by "President" Blair....)

  7. Honest mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The saw 'Waco' and thought 'Whacko'

  8. Mm, feds. by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Really need to love how the Senate wants to try and look like they're preventing spam, while the Treasury seems to support it. Sometimes I wish we had a dictator.

    1. Re:Mm, feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know what you mean. I think we should all get behind this Senator Palpatine guy during the next election.

    2. Re:Mm, feds. by Erick+the+Red · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have a dictator. Well it's heading that way, anyways.

      --

      DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

      ok
    3. Re:Mm, feds. by panxerox · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Sometimes I wish we had a dictator." Me me me Pick me ! Pick me ! theeeen we will see how long those spammers last hahahahaha

      --
      "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    4. Re:Mm, feds. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's not.

      He'll lose his position eventually. If it takes eight years to toss him, it'll take eight years. The problem isn't that ONE person is a dictator.

      The problem is that the entire political system has been corrupted at the roots all the way to the top of the tree. So, when this kook and his cronies and the current inept morons at each level of government are gone, they'll be replaced by a whole new set of gibbering morons and self-indulgent puppets.

      Yes, it's Democracy. Yes, it's a republic. But, what's the point when you're choices always boil down to dumb, dumber, or dumbest?

      If this goes on much longer, that is, if the American populace doesn't start demanding accountability from it's own government, the only solution will eventually be to rip the whole thing up by the roots and put an uncorrupted system back in its place. The odds of a successful transplant on that scale are, to say the least, not good.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    5. Re:Mm, feds. by Erick+the+Red · · Score: 1

      ...the only solution will eventually be to rip the whole thing up by the roots and put an uncorrupted system back in its place. The odds of a successful transplant on that scale are, to say the least, not good.

      As we are currently witnessing in Iraq.
      --

      DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

      ok
    6. Re:Mm, feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, perhaps if the USA defederated? I'd say smaller democracies could step in if the current system collapsed? Most US states are the size of european countries anyway.

    7. Re:Mm, feds. by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe the US troops in Iraq should come back to liberate this country.

    8. Re:Mm, feds. by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      So, when this kook and his cronies and the current inept morons at each level of government are gone, they'll be replaced by a whole new set of gibbering morons and self-indulgent puppets.

      And no matter what we are bound to have everyone say " I didnt vote for the guy" and yet, somehow, he is in office. Odd that is.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    9. Re:Mm, feds. by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You assume the dictator is the same person as the chief. Consider how long some of the current administration heads have been working in the government. My favorite example is Jack Valenti. He gets onto the radar of these young nerds because of recent dealings in the entertainment industry. But how many realize that he'd occupied a position of authority for 4 decades? How many know he was in the JFK motorcade?

      Consider Ashcroft's career. Did you vote for Ashcroft? He had power 8 years ago, and he will probably still have power 8 years hence, even though Mr. Bush will be quietly enjoying his retirement.

      How about Rumsfeld? He didn't just fall off a turnip truck in 2000 either -- he's been pulling strings in Washington DC since the Eisenhower administration! Did you vote for Rumsfeld? Why didn't he disappear after 8 years in the executive team?

      The people fucking up the State are NOT elected, and they do NOT have finite limits on how long they can stay in power. Some of the most important people making some of the most significant decisions in the history of the country, weren't even elected by the people.

      Too bad the misdirection works so well, making everybody point their blame the temp worker who occupies the hot seat while the real power people stay under the radar for decades.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Mm, feds. by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Maybe the US troops in Iraq should come back to liberate this country."

      Maybe they would if they had a reason.

      What issue do you think is heavy enough to cause a military force to turn on its own command? There are countless examples from history, so we know that it's possible. But do you really believe the US has such an issue today, or will have, in the forseeable future? What issues would those be?

      It looks to me like everybody is pretty much blissfully happy with the general state of affairs, and that the people in the military rank and file are just about as loyal and satisfied as any military organization has ever been in history. For your revolutionary scenario, all that would have to be pretty much the opposite of how it is right now, which is to say nothing of how bad things would have to get before the military *commanders* decided death was a better choice than fighting *for* the country.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    11. Re:Mm, feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Maybe the US troops in Iraq should come back to liberate this country."

      I think they may be obligated to. Don't they swear an oath to uphold the constitution? Courts rule that GW exceeded his authority, then military police show up at the White House to arrest him. Shouldn't that be how it works? When does CNN broadcast the video of him being examined by a military doctor?

    12. Re:Mm, feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How about Rumsfeld? He didn't just fall off a turnip truck in 2000 either -- he's been pulling strings in Washington DC since the Eisenhower administration! "

      Earlier. Back in the 18th century he was human. Hopefully a gypsy will curse him so he gets his soul back. Likewise Pearl and Wolfowitz.

    13. Re:Mm, feds. by Shivaji+Maharaj · · Score: 1

      modprobe senseofhumor

      --
      We do not have a history of profitable operations. Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
    14. Re:Mm, feds. by PaK_Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Although one might think that the odds of us(American populace) suceeding in a 'revolution' of sorts, a tearing up of the old dieseased tree, and an implating with the new, are dismal at best; fear not my fellow citizen. For it is the American way to let everything get out of hand till it's just 'enough', and we fix it. Americans, or so they seem, are too caught up in their everyday lives to be concerned with the world around them. This works just fine, untill the climate dictates that this will not work for much longer.

      Although almost every American will tell you that they value 'freedom', most don't even know the true meaning of the word, nor would they know it if it landed on their faces.

      Living in America, at least for me, has always meant being ready, more than anything else. I live my life with a certian amount of freedom, and dreadfully await the time, when freedom seems to be impossible to obtain.

      I value my freedom first and foremost, I just wish that more Americans were versed on CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY. Freedom isn't free, it requires communities working together, it takes work.

      --End Rant

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    15. Re:Mm, feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only states that have this as an option are Texas and Hawaii. Both were countries before they were states. Unfortunately.

    16. Re:Mm, feds. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most people in the military have no trouble with things like the Patriot act because they don't live in a "free" society in the military...military justice is much different than civilian justice and deeply rooted in the honor system and in obeying your superiors...right or wrong. For a matter of fact most ex-military people I've talked to actually root for patriot act as bringing "order" to the country...they tend to miss the fact that civilian authorities and politicans are not bound by oaths or honor like military folk are.

    17. Re:Mm, feds. by Avihson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is interesting that back then all it took was a couple of guys with printing presses and a few with horses and a good oratory style to stir up a sufficient number of the population and start a revolution. This was over an outlandish tax rate of 10% to boot!

      The Majority of the population of the colonies were not pro-revolution! The majority were either happy sheep or Torries. If memory serves me right the Torry population didn't all go to Canada either after the final outcome. A good portion of them hung around, grumbling; only to try and re-revolt in the war of 1812.

      Now we have fat, dumb and happy sheep throughout the first world. What kind of government sponsored atrocities will it take to get the next batch of revolutionaries off their haunches?

      I think we will see the slow constant erosion of rights till nothing is left.

    18. Re:Mm, feds. by Phillup · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What else were they going to do... watch reruns?

      No television = not sitting on your ass.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    19. Re:Mm, feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the US troops in Iraq should come back to liberate this country.

      It would be more ironic if the Iraqi troops did it...

    20. Re:Mm, feds. by jobsagoodun · · Score: 1

      modprobe senseofhumor

      Snurk :-). Choked on my tea. Wish I had mod points this morning.

    21. Re:Mm, feds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blissfully happy

      Hmmm, I guess you would have to ask the 2.5 million that have lost their jobs, or our kids in 15 years when they have to pay off the largest deficit in history making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Or ask the kids that were "left behind". Or ask the military personnel whose combat pay was cut in half. Or ask the increasingly expanding lower class. Or just ask anyone who lives anywhere else in the world (minus Isreal, and Tony Blair). OR... ah crap, too tired to keep writin.. g... zzzz...zzzz

    22. Re:Mm, feds. by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      Douglas Adams said pretty much exactly this in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide books: remember how the main qualification for Galactic President was to be as outrageous and attention-grabbing as possible so that no-one looked past that to see what was really going on?

      But, just like the dophins, nobody took any notice.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    23. Re:Mm, feds. by kabocox · · Score: 1


      The people fucking up the State are NOT elected, and they do NOT have finite limits on how long they can stay in power. Some of the most important people making some of the most significant decisions in the history of the country, weren't even elected by the people.

      Too bad the misdirection works so well, making everybody point their blame the temp worker who occupies the hot seat while the real power people stay under the radar for decades.


      Oh, that's just the shadow government. You have to be a political insider of either party to get in. Don't worry they are even less organized than our visible government. They are just around longer.

    24. Re:Mm, feds. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Hmmm, I guess you would have to ask the 2.5
      >million that have lost their jobs

      A small minority. The big picture (seen from my office window) is, lots of late model cars, people living in new-construction homes, and "satisfaction" being the general mood.

      >Or ask the military personnel whose combat pay
      >was cut in half.

      An exaggeration. And are they deserting? Are they rebelling? I'd suggest they are probably re-enlisting.

      > or our kids in 15 years

      Conjecture.

      The point is, nobody is, as yet, upset enough to take up arms against the authority. Pretty much everybody seems to be willing and able to live another day, rather than make the ulitmate sacrifice to force change.

      We don't have the social or economic conditions that trigger a revolution.

      You say "just ask anybody", and I say, if things were that bad, you wouldn't have to ask -- the chaos would come to you.

      I think my problem is that I've studied too much Russian history. Read up on what conditions were like during the Five Year Plan under Stalin, and then tell me again how your life is hard because jobs where you sit at a desk and stare at a monitor are becoming more scarce.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    25. Re:Mm, feds. by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      We have a dictator in the UK. The only differences are that ours was actually elected, because the thinking members of society were all so bored with lying, corrupt politicians that they did not bother to vote, and ours is not mentally defective, but rather has the same syndrome as Bill Gates, a kind of megalomania. We also have a vile communist scumbag running London, again because nobody bothered to vote.

      One answer might be to make voting compulsory.

      One good thing is that your piece of trash and our piece of trash might well bring each other down. They both lied about Saddam, and other things, and it is coming out, slowly....

      Oh dear, Red Ken and President/Pope/King Blair are now added to the list of people who are going to sue me.... Still, Blair's sidekick Brown has taken all my money in tax, so they will not be able to extract any more.

    26. Re:Mm, feds. by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      To see what is really going on, look up "Illuminati", "Bildeberg", "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" or "Trilateral Commission", and please don't connect any of them with real Jews, which they are not, and who I would not malign in any way.

      The last time I mentioned one of these on /., the whole thread disappeared suddenly, I wonder what will happen this time......

    27. Re:Mm, feds. by tiger99 · · Score: 1

      A dictator seems to work quite well in Singapore. maybe their system is worth studying to see why. Of course, it is a small multi-racial country with lots of high-tech industry, so it might not be typical.

    28. Re:Mm, feds. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      That's because you and everyone who participated all got modded down to -1, (Nucking Futs) and you're not browsing at a low enough threshold.

      Seriously though. Show me some real evidence, not just the archaic ramblings of any random looney tune on the Network, and I'll think the "Illuminati" really is some secret organization and not just a funny conspiracy theory that explains the clearly out of control system of blatant deception and incompetence that doesn't need a mask because people are too stupid to care about it anyway.

      The "Illuminati" doesn't need to hide, and it certainly doesn't need a silly name like that or funny eyeballs or secret headquarters and meetings. The People of the United States are so braindead thanks to "media" conjecture, loaded polls, and hair-brained rumors about "ter'rists", "the economy, stupid", and the latest bogus Super Diseases that they're too fried to critcally analyze anything anyone says. As a result, they take any assinine comment out of the President's mouth or any ridiculous load of steaming horseshit that Brokaw reads, or whatever moronic headline they see in the Washington Post as gospel. You don't need to hide from people who would just as soon make excuses for your stupidity, crooked dealings, and lies as challenge you on them.

      Or, to put it another way, how do a make a bunch of foolish people realize that they are, in fact, being led by fools, and what makes you think the fools doing the leading need to hide from their incompetent followers?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  9. governmental in-fighting by CoffeeCrusader · · Score: 3, Interesting

    maybe it's just that the department of treasury figures that spammers support the industry more than they do harm to it. Thus they decided to support the spammers.

  10. Hey BITCH: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see any first post claim in there?

  11. Re:First post, you cocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US Treasures. What is it all about... is it good, or is it whack?

  12. You neglect one important point... by clifgriffin · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have anti-spam laws now.

    Those will stop the spammers and email harvesters.

    Clif

    1. Re:You neglect one important point... by ortcutt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Including all the off-shore spammers? I hope your comment was supposed to funny, because it made me laugh.

    2. Re:You neglect one important point... by kcornia · · Score: 1

      Feeling a bit like the end of a runway?

    3. Re:You neglect one important point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we have anti-spam laws. Too bad these laws only have jurisdiction for spammers here in the United States. I am sure there are plenty of "Hot teenage girls" elsewhere in the world that would like you to visit their websites.

    4. Re:You neglect one important point... by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      That's only if those spammers are caught, and only if the law is enforced. If they find a way to skirt around the problem, which I'm sure they will, at least for a brief period of time, it would be a nuissance for those who had their names taken from this list.

      Of course, after typing all this, I realize you can't be that serious, and I also notice the 'funny' tag to it. Phew, good thing I didn't make an ass out of myself!

    5. Re:You neglect one important point... by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

      That's why we have moderation, so you don't have to think. Since it's currently +5 Funny, i'd say it's pretty clear.

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
  13. Grrrr by Erick+the+Red · · Score: 1

    Can they be held financially responsible when the SPAM starts pouring in?

    I doubt any lawsuits will fly, but technically savey people know that what they did was a Cardinal Sin.

    --

    DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

    ok
    1. Re:Grrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled Savvy. You're welcome.

      p.s. you misspelled your first name, too.

    2. Re:Grrrr by Erick+the+Red · · Score: 1

      You're right about savvy, though savey seems to kinda work too.

      Oh, and while Eric the Red's name is spelt without the "k," my name, Erick, is spelt with it.

      --

      DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

      ok
  14. Capitalism at work by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just show the treasury you disaprove by not using their products. If enough people do this they'll get the message and change their policies.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Capitalism at work by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've been trying to eliminate cash from my life for ages. Now I'll try even harder to use my credit card. Or is that not what the Treasury does these days...?

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    2. Re:Capitalism at work by runlvl0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just show the treasury you disaprove by not using their products.

      Awww, but they just spent $32 million on advertising their Fall 2003 product line!

      Personally, I'm only using Republic of Texas money.

      --

      Carthago delenda est!
    3. Re:Capitalism at work by Kenja · · Score: 2

      Its easy to spend 32 mullion dollars on advertising when you print money for a living.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re:Capitalism at work by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny
      Personally, I'm only using Republic of Texas money.

      Yes, but does Photoshop recognize it as valid currency?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:Capitalism at work by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Somebody seriously needs to make the Republic of Texas happen. If their government is anything like their web page, they might be the first place more entertaining to watch from afar than Florida. I mean, they're claiming credit for Thanksgiving! It's brilliant, it'll be like having the CCCP back!

    6. Re:Capitalism at work by afidel · · Score: 1

      Nope, providing cash is an almost infinitly small part of what the treasury does. Basically they have three central rolls:
      a)setting the interest rate that they charge commercial banks
      b)buying and selling foreign currencies to nudge their value in relation to the dollar
      c)regulate financial institutions

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Capitalism at work by Conspir8or · · Score: 1

      Feh! The only money I use was issued by the Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, Norton I, and that's the way I likes it!

    8. Re:Capitalism at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically they have three central rolls:

      I basically have three central rolls, also, but I'm doing sit-ups to fix that.

    9. Re:Capitalism at work by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Personally, I'm only using Republic of Texas money."

      Considering Texas is one of those states with the ignoble distinction of having achieved US statehood twice.. are they hoping the third time will be the charm? :)

      Besides, Texas is already a republic "or else" (per Article IV, section 4) and Austin might not take kindly to these people and their dabbling in currency if they decide to start minting gold and silver coins. Then you'd really be up a creek.

      Seriously, with all these little efforts by states recently to send a big "fuck you!" to Washington (Alaska trying to legalize marajuana, other states buying drugs from Canada, etc.), I'm surprised minting state currency hasn't popped up in a state legislature recently.

    10. Re:Capitalism at work by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      I would've found their newest product easier to accept if they were to give out free samples... ;] I mean, with that advertising budget...

    11. Re:Capitalism at work by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

      Try the Liberty Dollar.
      You may not be able to find merchants who take it, though.

    12. Re:Capitalism at work by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      The Emperor will return! Save your Norton-bucks!

  15. Damned if you do... by UberOogie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If the Treasury Deaprtment didn't post the comments, there would be talk of a government conspiracy to keep the public's voice from being heard.

    I don't agree with the Treasury Department violating its stated policy. It's frankly chilling coming from a government agency. (Imagine if they had the same policy with witness protection. "Yeah, well, we were going to give you a new identity, but we ran out of budget money this month.") But either way, they were screwed.

    --
    "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    1. Re:Damned if you do... by benna · · Score: 1

      Yeah but its really not that hard to remove addresses. I would bet they could do it in a matter of hours if they really wanted to but they would rather intimidate people into not sending them comments.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:Damned if you do... by DetrimentalFiend · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are you talking about? The only reason the treasury is doing this is to punish everyone for sending their comments in. Any one of us could write a perl script in 20 minutes that would process the data and output it in a usable manor. Either everyone at the treasury is an idiot (possible), or they just decided that they didn't care. Honestly, do you think most of these people will send their comments next time the treasury asks for them? I doubt it.

    3. Re:Damned if you do... by segmond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Listen, 10000 emails.
      I can pretty much go through 10000 emails in one week. One, start by grepping "@" in the comments. Then the 2 letter abbreviation code for states. Then reading it. So their excuse that they cannot go through it all, is bull.

      --
      ------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
    4. Re:Damned if you do... by AVee · · Score: 1

      The most funny part of it all is that they admit, indirectly, that they haven't even looked at the comments. If anyone there has been reading these emails he/she could have removed the personal info easily enough. That's not to much extra effort when you are reading or even just scanning the stuff anyway. But hey, they could send the mails to me, i'll remove the personal data for a dollar per email...

    5. Re:Damned if you do... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Spammers can easily process 10,000 emails in one or not many more seconds.

      If your treasury department has been lying to you then perhaps it's a good idea to get a new treasury department.

      If the email addresses etc are in a separate field from the comments, you can very easily remove them.

      --
  16. surprise surprise by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just one of many of the anti-free speach measures being taken by the Bush government...

    Still feel good about voting the republicans in ?

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:surprise surprise by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Just one of many of the anti-free speach measures being taken by the Bush government

      Ok, I just have to ask... How is fully posting comments made by the citizens freely "Anti-Free speech ? I can see if they were only publishing some comments, but not others, or something like that.

      That said - why isn't this just a perl script or something to remove these fields from the incoming comments. Or are people dumb enough to embed their e-mail address/physical addresses into the comments

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    2. Re:surprise surprise by rsborg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ok, I just have to ask... How is fully posting comments made by the citizens freely "Anti-Free speech ? I can see if they were only publishing some comments, but not others, or something like that.

      Gee, if you think about it you might come to the conclusion that this was deliberately done to dissuade reasonable people (ie, those don't want their emails to be harvested) from responding. I sure as hell will think twice before I respond to another one of their "request for comment" periods.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:surprise surprise by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah? People are going to be dissuaded by this? Wouldn't this just drive people to get junk e-mail addresses and use them for any communique with the government and companies, as they should have been doing already?

      I certainly use my hotmail address for nothing but garbage.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    4. Re:surprise surprise by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
      Gee, if you think about it you might come to the conclusion that this was deliberately done to dissuade reasonable people (ie, those don't want their emails to be harvested) from responding. I sure as hell will think twice before I respond to another one of their "request for comment" periods.

      If I were worried about this I would setup a one time e-mail address for this, or not provide one at all. I wouldn't fully believe these things anyway - what if a person put in a comment, I am going to do something bad - don't think that e-mail/physical address would get out fast ?
      What about FOIA requests - somebody really REALLY wants to know what the e-mail addresses are (your handy spammer) and files one - bets on there being all kinds of ANTI-Free speech stuff going around when the headline reads - Govt. refuses to give up information to organization requesting it through FOIA ?

      So what you DID ignore was me also wondering why the heck they couldn't just filter the junk out of online posts ?

      Or maybe the problem is with OCR input letters, having to have staff go through and edit each one for content, I can see that taking a long time - and being a big problem if for example side A tended to use the internet for input (and it going online immediately) and side B was using snail mail and comments being held up 2 months (beyond receiving the letter) because a staffer had to go through the OCR'd input and remove all personal references to address/phone numbers/e-mail addresses.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    5. Re:surprise surprise by http · · Score: 1

      How is fully posting comments made by the citizens freely "Anti-Free speech ?
      ok, would you kindly post your name, address, and email in reply?

      still feel free?

      no script any time soon, for someone's email address included in the body of an email is not a 'field'. (and how, exactly, is it dumb to put your email address in your email, aside from the extra bandwidth?) do _you_ want to write the perl script that takes out all email addresses in all messages, except for all of those ones that are (and should be) publicly known, OR are germane to the message, wherever they may appear in the message?
      i'm not volunteering for that one. the only way i'd tackle that coding job is if i had an exorbitant government contract ($300/hr for each team member would be about right) because i'm sure the scope creep would be...extensive.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    6. Re:surprise surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's EXTREMELY STUPID to assume your email address is private. In security terms, it's a NAME, not a PASSWORD - it is long-lasting and necessary to contact you. Either use a throwaway email address or start using public key crypto to issue "stamps" to people you like, and spambucket everything not signed.

    7. Re:surprise surprise by UberGeeb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Still feel good about voting the republicans in ?

      I still haven't gotten around to making a bumper sticker that says "Don't blame me, I don't live in a swing state."

    8. Re:surprise surprise by phr2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free speech includes the right to speak anonymously (McIntyre vs Ohio Board of Elections), so people can express opinions without fear of reprisals, whether from the government or from non-government parties.

      BATF invited people to exercise their right of anonymous speech: they asked citizens for their opinions, said please give your contact info so we can get back to you with followup questions, but we won't publish your info, so random loons won't see it and bother you. Then they decided to publish the info anyway, opening the senders to reprisals, i.e. punishing people for exercising the right of anonymous speech.

      Think about what happens if you know about an ongoing crime (e.g. your mayor is taking weekly payoffs from the Mafia) and you tell the FBI on condition of anonymity (i.e. you can't testify as a witness, but you give them info to help them organize their own investigation). You might be fine giving the FBI your name and phone number so you can keep assisting them, but you definitely don't want them to notify the Mafia of where the info is coming from. The people you're concerned about reprisals from are not necessarily the government.

    9. Re:surprise surprise by Kneo24 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It might as well be an anti-free speech measure. Bush has stated he never reads newspapers or watches news on the TV. He only knows what he's been told. Ok, the first part doesn't make sense, but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. Or maybe you can't. Actually, I forgot where I was going to go with this.

    10. Re:surprise surprise by chivinou · · Score: 1

      I have read the article (yeah, me slashdot newbie), but I can't see anywhere that the messages are just stored without any format. So, if they are stored as emails, its easy enough to get and remove the email address from the header (and replace occurences in the body), if they are stored as structures submitted by a form, even easier.

      Even without that, its still easy enough to remove anything that looks like an email, a phone number, or an address. Is it terrible if an address that could be publicly known is removed this way? I dont see why.

      This is all kind of stupid though, isnt the point of posting a comment that it is going to be read? by a human able to manually remove the address?

      As a previous poster wrote, it seems they are simply overwhelmed by the unexpected number of replies. They should still hold their promise not to publish the addresses.

      It's not that bad since a person submitting his address to post a comment is likely to be either using a junk email address or having done that in the past, thus the address is already spammed. Besides, it made me discover spamgourmet.

    11. Re:surprise surprise by domsol · · Score: 1

      Are there any of the "Don't blame me, I voted in Massachusetts" bumper stickers left?

      --
      > My comment can be quoted whenever, wherever, so long as you bloody well provide attribution! >
  17. But we can't find out about.... by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But the public can not find out about the VP's secret energy taskforce.

    Sad.

    1. Re:But we can't find out about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or about the events surrounding 9/11. The White House made sure the rest of us will never know.

    2. Re:But we can't find out about.... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny
      But the public can not find out about the VP's secret energy taskforce.
      Secret energy? It must use Uranium from Niger - because that leaves absoutely no trace.
    3. Re:But we can't find out about.... by Atmchicago · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And our favorite "Kenny Boy" of Enron fame seems to be getting away unharmed.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    4. Re:But we can't find out about.... by cheezedawg · · Score: 0

      You say that as if it is a bad thing. Meetings with the President or Vice President have never been public record. Even Howard Dean understands this, in spite of what he is ranting about now.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    5. Re:But we can't find out about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting away with what? What crime did he commit? Do you somehow have special evidence that the US Attorney's office doesn't have that proves he is guilty?

      Didn't think so, so shut the hell up.

    6. Re:But we can't find out about.... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. It is a bad thing. Our goverment should not work in secret unless it has to. Energy policy does not currently rise to that level.

    7. Re:But we can't find out about.... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      If it's secret how do YOU know about it?

    8. Re:But we can't find out about.... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Because of the lawsuits brought by various groups to get the names / minutes of those meeting.

      That is all that anyone in the public knows about them. Is that the way a Democratic Republic should be ran?

    9. Re:But we can't find out about.... by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Either you can claim executive privilege, or you cannot. All of the benefits of getting privileged advice would be negated if the privilege could be overturned on a whim. Who decides how important something needs to be to be protected?

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    10. Re:But we can't find out about.... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Damn it, they work FOR US. Why is that so hard for people to understand that?

      They should not decide such matters behind closed doors. If they where doing nothing wrong, why won't they say what they did?

    11. Re:But we can't find out about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this makes it ok, then?

    12. Re:But we can't find out about.... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Actually, with the Fastow deal, it appears that the gov't is going to start going after Lay and a few others who have to date appeared to come through unscathed.

    13. Re:But we can't find out about.... by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with anything? Of course they work for us. They would have been remiss to NOT hear from energy companies while formulating an energy policy. It is their responsibility to gather as much information as they can on the subject.

      The Bush administration, along with Howard Dean, all of the past US Presidents that have claimed excutive privilege, as well as anybody that has been in a leadership position knows that you will get the most honest advice when people can talk in confidence. It would be detrimental to their ability to do their jobs if they lost this, especially just so their political opponents could go on a fishing trip to try to find ammo for the next election.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    14. Re:But we can't find out about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to government 101. It's called checks and balances.

    15. Re:But we can't find out about.... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Damn it, I didn't say the should not meet with the energy companies! I said they SHOULD NOT DO IT IN SECRET. Executive privilege should not be used for EVERYTHING they do, what happend to Open Goverment?

    16. Re:But we can't find out about.... by workindev · · Score: 1

      Whether you agree with it or not, Executive Privilege has been validated by the courts and used by almost every president. President Clinton himself used his Executive Privilege at least 13 times (far more than all of the other post-Water-gate presidents combined). The Clinton administration issued this directive in 1994:

      "The policy of this Administration is to comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch.... Executive privilege will be asserted only after careful review demonstrates that assertion of the privilege is necessary to protect Executive Branch prerogatives....Executive privilege belongs to the President, not individual departments or agencies"

      Its also interesting that the Clinton Administration adopted this policy in 1994 as well:

      "In circumstances involving communications relating to investigations of personal wrongdoing by government officials, it is our practice not to assert executive privilege, either in judicial proceedings or in congressional investigations and hearings."

      However, he used his Executive Priviledge on several occasions to delay or thwart the independent counsel investigation led by Kennith Starr, directly contradicting his own administration directives.

      The practice of claiming Executive Priviledge is not new, and it is ridiculous to use this in a partisan blast against the Bush administration, especially in light of the previous administrations liberal application of it.

    17. Re:But we can't find out about.... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Things you should know before you accuse me of being partisan:

      1: I donated to the GWB campaing during the last presidental election cycle.

      2: I voted for GWB during the last presidental election cycle.

      3: I supported GWB during the last presidental election cycle.

      However, it wasn't blind support and frankly I am getting tired of being accused of being a Dem because I do not agree 110% with everything the current admin does. He is the president of the USA, not God.

  18. The lesson is... by jlowery · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you drink, don't scribe.

    --
    If you post it, they will read.
  19. Perl?!? by Dalroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WTF?! Have they never heard of Perl??

    Bryan

    1. Re:Perl?!? by Sp4rtikuz · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, as that was so what I was about to say. Like seriously, how hard is it to change joshmo@com.com to XXXXX@XXX.XXX ... exxxactly, slackers.

    2. Re:Perl?!? by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the government we're talking about here. If it's not written in COBOL or ADA they don't want anything to do with it.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:Perl?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not quite that easy as they would have to remove e-mail addresses, home addresses and other personal information. This really calls for a hand check of all the data.

    4. Re:Perl?!? by Bigbiff · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same. Most of the fields that are to be exposed have well known regular expressions that could be used to remove them from the comments en masse. The hard part I would think would be the addresses, but I may not be thinking of something.

      --
      Bigbiff http://www.exxtreme-linux.org
    5. Re:Perl?!? by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      They probably think Perl is something you find in an oyster.

    6. Re:Perl?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FORTRAN-> everything ive ever worked with for the NRC is in FORTRAN

    7. Re:Perl?!? by ralphart · · Score: 1

      Sure, he was an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan Whitehouse turned shadowy advocate of the Iraq war. You certainly don't expect HIM to go deleting a bunch of email addresses??

      Oh wait...wrong Perle.... Never mind!

    8. Re:Perl?!? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "If it's not written in COBOL or ADA they don't want anything to do with it."

      I didn't know Microsoft actually made VisualCOBOL and VisualADA...

    9. Re:Perl?!? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      WTF?! Have they never heard of Perl??

      I guess many people put personal information into the message body (maybe even obfuscated email addresses). Perl isn't sufficiently advanced for that.

    10. Re:Perl?!? by Inda · · Score: 1

      WTF! Why Perl!?! We already know the webmaster/IT person is clueless. There is no chance they will know what Perl is nor what a Regex is.

      I have never taken the time to learn Perl but I can use Regexs in VBScript (yes!) and JavaScript. Surely we should be recommending the easiest scripting language possible and not trying to show how 'elite' we are?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  20. Not so bad by Nasarius · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're only not bothering to strip email addresses contained within the submitted comments themselves. As long as you didn't sign your comment or anything, it should be more or less anonymous.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
    1. Re:Not so bad by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      well think about it if you are posting something and dont want people to know who you are dont sign it.

      Its like kidnapping someone sending a ransom note to the fam and being like dont send this to the police signed john doe

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
  21. this is bullshit by MonkeysKickAss · · Score: 1

    Why stop at email addresses why not just give out our home address.

    --
    MonkeysKickAss
    1. Re:this is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you read the article, they are including your home address.

  22. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they have any spam filters?

    Blogzine

  23. Is this evel legal? by Spazholio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Usual disclaimers apply (IANAL), but when you decide to post on a public website under the auspices of privacy, you have a right to expect that their end of the bargain will be held up, no? Couldn't it be viewed that the privacy statement was a sort agreement between the department and the poster? Now that the department has broken its promise, is there any form of redress a person can seek?

    1. Re:Is this evel legal? by Kneo24 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was wondering the same thing. Isn't a privacy policy a form of a legal agreement? I swore I've heard of people suing websites (or companies) for breaking privacy policies before, but nothing comes to mind as to which companies.

    2. Re:Is this evel legal? by Anml4ixoye · · Score: 1

      Something I thought about with your post. I work for a local gov't agency, and any electronic transmission is, by law, public record. We have lots of disclaimers throughout the site and when you submit forms to notify you of this.

      One has to wonder if it really matters anyway. Like a previous poster said, you can probably file a FOIA request to get all of the email addresses anyway. But, if that is the case, they should have never made the innuation that the information you sent in would be private.

  24. Sue Them by core+plexus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) website has been taken off several times due to lawsuits over their inability to protect information. Maybe a lawsuit would provide for an injunction, at least. Then Treasury could find the time to remove the addresses.

    -cp-

    President Bush to Liberate Alaska

  25. Well, only if it is enforced... by Eyah....TIMMY · · Score: 0, Troll

    We do have laws to protect us against spam but the problem is enforcing them. Do you really have the time and resources to go track down with very expensive lawyers the spammer that lives in Brazil using a Russian ISP through an offshore bank account?

    Ideally the US gov would take care of it but it seems they'd rather support spammers...

    --

    It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
    1. Re:Well, only if it is enforced... by kjd · · Score: 1

      Computer! Re-enable sarcasm processing.

  26. Sue the Treasury department? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

    What, you think you can hurt them like that? They MAKE the money!

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Sue the Treasury department? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And thusly, ObviousGuy, you've missed the obvious.


      The point of suing an entity is not to obtain money - it is to legally compel them to action. In some cases, that means compelling them to give you money, but in many cases it's to stop an activity, cease a business practice, etc. The masses have been brainwashed into thinking that the courts are a large, complicated piggy-bank from which the delusionally mistreated obtain their fortunes.

  27. send me the text file.. by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 1

    I could do it pretty quick with a regExp search/replace in UltraEdit, my fav text editor.

    1. Re:send me the text file.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      No, send *me* the text file.

      I'll contact each of those addresses asking if they'd like to be removed from the list. I'll even provide them with some valuable offers to compensate them for the inconvience of answering.

      Heck, I'll provide the government with a share of the profits.

      Win win win baby!

    2. Re:send me the text file.. by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      ...or code-genie...
      ...or vim...
      ...or ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS EREGEXes OR PREGEXes!

      Seriously, their excuse is lame.

  28. Maybe it's a trap! by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    They're going to wait for spammers to harvest the addresses and then call in air strikes on Alan Ralsky. :P

    1. Re:Maybe it's a trap! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Well, that's nothing new. (Continue on for a few days.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  29. They didn't have time to remove them??? by nysus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are they kidding? Their database is one SQL statement away from having them removed.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

  30. You mean the government LIED to us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just don't know what to make of this. It's just too... unexpected. I never thought that it could happen here.

  31. so a simple perl regular expression wouldn't work? by lotsolint · · Score: 2, Interesting

    in fear of flame from regex super gods, i won't dare post my regex example here... but really, could it be that hard to remove something@place.com ???

  32. Governmental Bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote anarchist on election day! Guns and molotov cocktails for all!

  33. Life without physical money by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can actually do this and live quite well.

    Direct deposit + a Visa check card means you can live quite nicely without handling any physical money (or even checks) at all. Heck, don't most Slashdotters live that way already?

    BTW, more money is out there in non-physical form than there is physical money.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:Life without physical money by JordanH · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, I hate to break this to you, but the non-physical money is created by the Treasury Department through the Federal Reserve also.

    2. Re:Life without physical money by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...you can live quite nicely without handling any physical money (or even checks) at all. Heck, don't most Slashdotters live that way already?

      BTW, more money is out there in non-physical form than there is physical money.


      You are married as well, I see....

    3. Re:Life without physical money by nolife · · Score: 1

      I use my check card and my credit unions implementation of CheckFree for everything. I don't think I've had more then $20 in cash in my wallet for years. My other half still writes checks but only when she has to. To make it even easier (or because we are lazy), we don't even "balance our checkbook". I scope out the transactions online for strange activity but never actually verify the numbers or calculate how much we have in the checking account but, I do check more often when it gets below few hundred dollars. Luckily in the past 7 to 10 years, my goz-ins have always been more then my goz-outs and I have never been overdrawn.

      My ex cubemate had direct deposit but went to the his bank on every payday and took out the entire balance in cash. Paid everything with money orders and cash. I never figured out what that was all about.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    4. Re:Life without physical money by MAPA3M · · Score: 0

      Tried that....

      My dealer said he prefers cash

    5. Re:Life without physical money by Kris_J · · Score: 1
      Direct deposit + a Visa check card means you can live quite nicely without handling any physical money (or even checks) at all. Heck, don't most Slashdotters live that way already?
      I don't, and I'll tell you why:

      Swapmeets

      They may be called something different where you live, but garage sales, trash 'n treasure, flea markets, call them what you will, are people buying stuff from people, no companies involved. Therefore no credit card available. It's not that cash is needed for privacy, it's needed because credit cards cost money to process and Visa/Mastercard aren't interested in letting individuals accept credit cards.

      I'm not interested in being a "good little consumer" -- I buy secondhand, therefore I need cash.

    6. Re:Life without physical money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you still pay taxes on that stuff... and you're still transfering debts that represent the American monetary system.

      What you really wanna do is barter/trade services and goods as much as possible.

      Maybe people can stop hoarding food too... that's what started this whole money thing to begin with. (well sorta, agriculture.)

  34. the camel says ... by Heisenbug · · Score: 3, Informative

    perl -pi -e 's/\S+\@\S+/\[email_ommitted\]/g' comments_file.txt

    Do I win the prize?

    1. Re:the camel says ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not quite that easy as they would have to remove e-mail addresses, home addresses and other personal information. This really calls for a hand check of all the data.

    2. Re:the camel says ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not quite that easy as they would have to remove e-mail addresses, home addresses and other personal information. This really calls for a hand check of all the data.

      Yes, this is probably true. On the other hand, we're talking about 10,000 pieces of mail. It's a large-ish number, but not mind boggling. I certainly wouldn't want to be the single soul that has to check all pieces and filter them by hand. On the other hand, if you had SEVERAL people doing this, it could be done in a week or two.

      The problem here is that a government agency, a FEDERAL government agency, made a promise and is about to break it. THAT is intollerable. Lack of capacity planning? Maybe, but that's their problem. If a normal company said "We weren't gonna sell your personal information to spammers, but it turns out we're running short on revenue and need to sell everything we can." then they would get sued off the planet. Well, at least sued out of business. (In which case you're probably screwed either way, as the debtors would want to sell your information now...)

      Enough griping already. If you don't agree, let them know! Oh, and don't forget to use a dispossable Hotmail account to do it...

    3. Re:the camel says ... by MooCows · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's one point many here seem to be missing.

      Of course, it's still their fault of not seperating the data into fields.

      --
      The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
      30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
  35. class action suit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me see... if they publicly stated that they would not release your info and they later intentionally do, doesn't that constitute a breach of contract? Do I hear class action suit?

    You legan beagals out there -- would it stand up in court?

    1. Re:class action suit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The terms of this agreement may change without notice.

      Looks like terms just changed.

    2. Re:class action suit? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Having such a statement work backwards makes it kind of pointless to have an agreement say anything at all. I can see how one can change an agreement so that it from a certain point of change, onwards works in a new way (and one can then of course cancel the whole agreement), but simply changing it to affect allready agreed upon things is usually not applicable.

  36. Sounds like a wonderful time for a DDOS attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attack something worth a darn! EOM.

    Posting Anonymously because I can :)

  37. Re:FTC has more info by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    These links are booby trapped!

    They abuse the FTC's scripts to do a nasty redirect.

    And the parent post is quite likely illegal as a result.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  38. you have indeed won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just post your email address as a reply to this post and watch the prizes start to roll on in ;)

  39. explain by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    How is this limiting speech? I thought information wanted to be free? Oh wait thats unless its about you. Please explain how Bush is limiting my freedom of speech. Don't just say patriot act blah blah, give me specifics and details.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  40. I Protest. by Murmer · · Score: 5, Funny
    I, for one, plan to boycott money.

    Of course I'm a student, so I'm pretty much doing that anyway.

    --
    Mike Hoye
    1. Re:I Protest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the barter system. Be part of the process of getting what you need. Do without anything that must be purchased with federal reserve currency. The idea that large numbers of people might really start using a barter system instead of feneral reserve notes scares some people shitless.

  41. awk up the wazzoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    guess there isn't anyone at the treasury that's smart enough to use *nix... they were probably thinking of removing all that data by hand XD

  42. Use free email (dead drop) accounts for this stuff by jbs0902 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know this is what dead drop email accounts are for. It is an address that I use to send information but never to receive it, or just receive things once. Simple reuseable 1 way communication.

    Free email accounts like Yahoo/Hotmail are great for this.

    My Slashdot email, a dead drop yahoo account. That email account I need for registration that sends me a temp password in the email, drop dead account. MSN Messenger and the MS Passport thing, drop dead account.

    People I WANT to talk to, my personal email account. People work pays me to talk to, my work email account.

    Running my own email server allows another level of indirection. Every company I do business with gets their own email address (well alias to a mail_order@myemail.com address).

  43. tagged email addresses by scaldef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is why it's good to use email addresses like me+treasurydept@mydomain.com. Then when the spam starts coming in, you can set up a forwarding rule to send it all to the bonehead who made that decision.

    1. Re:tagged email addresses by schwaang · · Score: 1

      perl -pi -e 's/(\S+)(\+\S+)?(\@\S+)/spamto:$1$3/g' comments_file.txt Do I win the prize?

    2. Re:tagged email addresses by Mawbid · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's better not to include the "me" part at all. That means extra work because you have to add to /etc/aliases yourself, whereas you can have the MTA do the + thing for you.

      Point of information: I've been doing this whenever a company asks for registration to download their products, use their forums, whatever. In the years I've been doing this, I've never received spam to any of those aliases.

      So, it's apparently very rare for reputable companies to use their account database for spamming or to sell addresses to spammers.

      I should have been less paranoid about businesses I have some sort of relationship with and more paranoid about where my address appears on the web.

      --
      Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
    3. Re:tagged email addresses by Violet+Null · · Score: 1

      It's better not to include the "me" part at all. That means extra work because you have to add to /etc/aliases yourself, whereas you can have the MTA do the + thing for you.

      If you're using Postfix, you could add this to your /etc/postfix/virtual.regexp:

      /^(.*)_(.*)@domain name$/ $1

      Then, any mail that includes a '_' will be forwarded to whatever's before the '_' without having to add an alias in for each one.

  44. COPPA (Child Online Privacy Protection Act) issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I assume they aren't going to post the names, addresses, and e-mails of children?

    I assume they ensured everyone posting was of legal age?

    I assume they know the rules of the Child Online Privacy Protection Act?

    If not, they're dumb.

  45. surprised ? by R_V_Winkle · · Score: 1

    It seems that it was no secret that the body of these messages were going to be made public. If we ignore or miss the important disclaimer about the editing only being done until it became inconveinient it still seems to me that common sense would tell you not to put personal information in the BODY of the message as the risk of human or programatic error during the editing process would seem at least possible if not altogether likely.

    I personally would never send my real email address to a public anything online, much less my name and phone number. I don't agree with the release of this information but for those who need a lesson in personal privacy management perhaps this will help them understand.

  46. Re:First post, you cocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Email. What is that all about... is it good,


    O
    R

    I
    S

    I
    T

    Whack?


      • --
        An ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie and intrigue for the benefit of his country. -- Sir Henry Wotton, 1568-1639
  47. Yeah REALLY by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

    Let's get those free speech loving Democrats such as Tipper Gore back in power again. They LOVE protecting our rights

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Have a mule account by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    That's why I have a e-mule account. For example, Hotmail provides a free e-mule account that I use. Want to make that account available to SPAMers? Suit your self. I'll just create anotherone and ignore the now plundered spammed account.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  50. Thank you slashdot... by dan14807 · · Score: 1

    Thank you slashdot for posting a story that links to the addresses the Treasury Dept. has posted :-)

    Seriously, though, that's probably not helping. Unless someone on slashdot actually takes action against them, but that seems unlikely.

  51. Prediction by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Here's my prediction: This is going to change in a few days. What happened is that due to laziness or cluelessness, the webmasters at the Treasury site claimed "Oh, no. Deleting those addresses is impossible." They're going to get a slew of posts calling them idiots and explaining that the fix can be made in 15 seconds. At which point the boss will go back, chew out the webmasters and tell them to fix it.

    Certainly this is no reason to stop commenting on proposals. We're talking about a tax on malt liquor-based beverages, for crying out loud! Fighting that is worth a little exposure to spammers!

    (Are there really "malt beverage aficionados"? And they communicate with one another)

    1. Re:Prediction by hlh_nospam · · Score: 1

      You are making the erroneous assumption that there is any meaningful feedback mechanism in existence here.

  52. Regex free of charge by ispel · · Score: 3, Informative
    Blockquoth the article:
    "The unusually large number of comments received...has made it difficult to remove all street addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the comments for posting on our Internet Web site in a timely manner," the Treasury Department...


    Its clear they didn't ask a programmer to try.

    Just search and replace the following:
    [^ ]+@[^ ]+?\.[^ ]+ that should take care of your emails

    [()0-9+-]+ should take care of many phone numbers

    \d+.{,25}(dr|st|pl|ave|rd|blvd|highway|hwy|tr|terr ) - should take care of many street addresses

    (Above are not tested-just some off the top of my head)

    I'd suggest replacing them with "x"'s so have some idea what was removed, esp. in cases of false positives.
    1. Re:Regex free of charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      they said "all", and you said "many".

      Perhaps this is the problem. They could only remove many when the goal was all.

  53. Alea iacta est by Tirinal · · Score: 1

    The US Treasure seems to be inviting all sorts of dangerous abuses with this current ideology. Obligatory perspective paradigm: "Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster. For if you gaze in the Abyss, the Abyss gazes into you." :)

    --
    ~Tirinal
  54. Quick, someone send them a Perl book. by -tji · · Score: 1

    They claim that they cannot process all of the e-mails to remove the e-mail addresses in a reaonable time.

    What do they have, some moron using MS Outlook copying the messages by hand? Someone needs to clue them into Perl, C, or any of the dozens of tools for this job.

  55. Get a clue people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The are not posting the email addresses of the people from the email sent to them they are posting any email address and other information those morons put into their comments (sig lines and such).

    If someone wants to be an idiot and put their email address, phone number, address and social security number in their sig line then it's their damn fault for getting this info displayed publicy.

    "The unusually large number of comments received...has made it difficult to remove all street addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the comments for posting on our Internet Web site in a timely manner," the Treasury Department said in a follow-up notice, published last month in the Federal Register. "Therefore, to ensure that the public has Internet access to the thousands of comments received...at the earliest practicable time, we will post comments received on that notice on our Web site in full, including any street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses contained in the comments."

  56. Its not as bad as it sounds by nofx911 · · Score: 1

    While the government shouldn't go back on its word regarding the posting of private information. They are stripping out headers from the messages and allowing indivduals who do not want their information posted to write in.

    This means that only people who felt the need to repeat their email address (or mailing address) in their message, and/or are ignoring the issue (as this has been postedin several areas) after submitting their comments will be affected by this decision.

    At least that is my take on it. Nasty, but not the end of the world

  57. They Say it's Because they CAN'T Remove Them by ReadParse · · Score: 5, Funny

    For crying out loud. Please tell me you're compelled by the law or by a Supreme Court decision. Tell me you didn't notice. Tell me you don't care about privacy. Tell me it's an April Fools Joke. But please, please, don't tell me you're posting them because you can't get rid of them. It just makes you look silly. The answer is Perl and a competent scripter. Send the data to me after I sign a nondisclosure and I'll clean it for you. It's not that much data anyway.

    For Pete's Sake!

    RP

    1. Re:They Say it's Because they CAN'T Remove Them by droleary · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Send the data to me after I sign a nondisclosure and I'll clean it for you.

      Why should you have to sign an NDA? This is, after all, information they are just going to throw out there for everybody unless something smart gets done. Giving it freely to one person has to be a lot less damaging than that, and if they think you might try to munge more than email addresses, a simple scan by eye of the diff would show that.

      It's not that much data anyway.

      More importantly, it is data that by procedure could have been stripped as the comments were read by whatever human(s) went through them. Not doing so is essentially an admission that they didn't even bother to process the comments properly otherwise. The whole thing is just dripping with government incompetence.

    2. Re:They Say it's Because they CAN'T Remove Them by jsdkl · · Score: 1

      A competent programmer? I can barely spell pearl^H^H^H^H^H Perl and I could do it.

      For that matter, even Microsoft Notepad has a find function (maybe even find & replace).

    3. Re:They Say it's Because they CAN'T Remove Them by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      You don't even need a competent scripter. I wouldn't call myself a competent scripter and I certainly couldn't just write out the perl off the top of my head, but I could certainly work it out in five minutes using man regexp and a tiny bit of trial-and-error. The script would be a couple of lines.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
  58. Re:Worst lesson ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, the American Revolution was fun, wasn't it?

    Alas, that was pre-nuclear age.

    Today "those that have a lot more power than you" have A LOT more power than you. And A LOT more power over you than anyone in history has ever had over much of anyone. Orders of magnitude more power than you might even imagine they have.

  59. What? Due to time constraints??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked, a brand-new P200 ran a perl script to filter out all email addresses in about 0.00000391 seconds.

    Damn Windows weenies! Not the slightest clue about how to work efficiently!

  60. Can you trust their bonds? by jmcharry · · Score: 1

    If their word is not good on one thing, why should one trust them on another? Not to mention, of course, the government's defaults on Social Security and Medicare.

  61. Re:Worst lesson ever. by scrod · · Score: 1
    The lesson here is organize.

    Moderate this man up.
  62. Re:Worst lesson ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No kidding. And what about Cinderella?

    Everything worked out alright for her.

  63. Dept of Treasury Addresses by kmahan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since it is "public" information the Dept of Treasury should be required to provide (maybe with a FOIA request) the home addresses/telephone numbers/email addresses of all of their employees. That would be inline with what they are doing.

    --
    Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
  64. not anymore [nt] by SnatMandu · · Score: 1

    nt

  65. Re:More corruption. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how the fuck is this corruption?
    it might be stupid but corruption it ain't, dumbass.

  66. speaking of cowboyneal and comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because of a GNAA crapflood, CowboyNeal no longer allows comments on his blog.

    Nealy got owned :(

  67. Lesson - next time do it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't email the government scumbags. Call them from a caller-ID-blocked pay phone.

  68. Now we have PROOF of /.'s anti-US stories... by BTWR · · Score: 0

    Now we have PROOF of /.'s anti-US stories...

    Big deal. This sort of thing happens ALL the time. Companies are always "changing their user agreement" and now are "consulting with our market directors with products we feel you might enjoy." Hell, even though I signed every "opt out" option from yahoo, I still get emails from them once every other week.

    But do any of those multitude of stories make Slashdot's cover page? Hell no. But when it's the EVIL, WAR-MONGERING, FREEDOM-REPEALING U.S. GOVERNMENT (oops, i meant "police state") then it's headline news (literally).

    To be fair, not all Slashdot editors post this stuff, but some editors feel they must pursue their own opinions on this news site.

    For the record, I don't appreciate the anti-US comments made daily by posters, but it's one thing to comment when we users all have an even opportunity to present our case. It's another thing to abuse editorial power to post entire stories based on a one-sided ideology.

    1. Re:Now we have PROOF of /.'s anti-US stories... by Kneo24 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As you probably know, someone will either mod you up for being insightful, or mod you down for being a troller and a flamer. The latter of the two seems more likely. I also bet you don't care. I just felt like wasting thirty seconds to type this all out. Have a great day/evening!

    2. Re:Now we have PROOF of /.'s anti-US stories... by BTWR · · Score: 1

      yeah. no worries though. If I need to regain some karma, all I'll have to do is get an easy "+5, funny" by either:

      a) making a crack about Duke Nukem Forever
      b) mocking U.S. metric confusion or
      c) saying how maybe we'll _________ if we just tell Bush there are WMDs there!

  69. Bush isn't a Republican by zealotasd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    George Bush is a fascist exercising socialism from David Rockefeller and perpetuating an unlawfully implied state of war by means of colorable unlawful Acts of the incorporated Congress via (corporate))U.S. Congress. Don't you remember, they don't need to Declare War anymore; they just point their muzzles and shoot when they feel intimidated. You think you're not in a concentration camp until you get on the freeway...or walk to the edge of the world which the corporate masters have defined. Look at the freeway. Do you like it? Do you like what you see? Listen to the State, you infadel; the State is your god!

    Do you think the Democrats are democratic? Democracy is allowed only between the states.
    The Republic is better known by the people having unalienable rights from God (not to be confused with Citizenship aka statutory rights granted by thet State god which affords rights to artificial entities) to be secure in their persons and property and effects and having freeman capacity as to not participate or expose themselves to state laws.

    http://familyguardian.tzo.com
    http://www.libert yforum.org
    http://www.lawfulmoney.org (the federalies knocked them off!)
    http://www.securedparty.org/ (do not confuse with http://secureparty.com's deception!)

    --

    Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
  70. Re:COPPA (Child Online Privacy Protection Act) iss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are mod points when you need some ?

    please mod this [Insightful]

  71. Re:Use free email (dead drop) accounts for this st by justMichael · · Score: 1

    Yeah works great, until some "friend" of yours does a reply to all or doesn't know how to use BCC or some moron that should definately know better leaks your email (linked no less) onto usenet and your pristine private address is now junk (I'm not bitter ;)

    qmail is your friend (I'm sure the others do something similar) me-somejunk@example.com for every place that needs an address.

    [OT] does anybody know an easy way to use a '.' in addition to a '-' for the extension addresses? I have been unable to find any references online.

  72. The Treasury Department wasn't ready..... by ZPO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The following makes no excuses for the US Department of the Treasury. They need to stick by their contract with the commenter at the time the comment was posted. This is an explanation of how the whole process works....

    The "public comment period" is standard in most US federal government rulemaking actions. Before the advent of access to rulemaking data via the web you were lucky if you knew there was a rulemaking in process unless you were part of an affected industry or had a lobbyist on staff.

    Typically, comments were filed by mail, fax, or courier. The courier provision is provided for the convenience of all those lobbyists and interest groups in Washington D.C.

    An issue such as changing the tax rates on malt beverages might get something like 10-100 comments filed. The GS-5 (maybe a 7) in charge of handling the comments would log them properly on a 12th generation photocopy of the "comment log sheet" (or some other similar name) and the comments would be either published with personal information removed (via a big black marker) or more likely ceremoniously placed in a large manilla file and trucked to a records vault.

    Enter the Internet - Now the rulemaking process is often posted for the whole world to see. Even with a requirement

    Now we've moved to having the rulemaking documents available on the Internet. While still requiring postal/fax/courier hard-copy replies this may have raised the comment quantity by an order of magnitude (100-1000). This greatly perplexed the government. Now they were getting comments from ordinary citizens. In fact, it is likely that the majority of the comments came from individual citizens. What are they to do? Not only is the filing clerk overloaded with the number of comments (and having to make a 13th generation of the log sheet to file them all), but they can't just take the lobbyist/interest group positions and claim it as public opinion.

    Now open an avenue to submit comments via email. Post the information to a few lists/newsgroups/web sites and suddenly you've got what happened here. The file clerk is totally overwhelmed. They can't do an automated strip of all personal information because they might miss some. They can't hire more people because its not in their budget. If they did hire more people there might not be funds for all those "fact finding" trips to places that coincidentally have excellent golf courses.

    Besides the most important point - now the *VAST* majority of the received comments are from individual american citizens. Whats is a government agency to do without the firm and easily heard voice of lobbyists to guide them? They might actually have to *READ* the comments and do some data analysis on what the citizens actually want.

    The best way to deal with this is for everyone that commented to send a written formal request that their personally identifiable be removed from the filing direct to the Treasury Department. Then send a similar dead-tree complain to the FTC. A letter to all 3 of your congressmen won't hurt either. It will give them a great opportunity to posture.

    1. Re:The Treasury Department wasn't ready..... by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      So while they are reading each comment they can't take the 20 seconds to remove the email address and other information before posting it?

      Oh wait, I forgot, nobody is really reading any of these comments including the committe that requested them. They are to busy to be bothered.

      I almost forgot that this is a republic.

  73. Re:Worst lesson ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then learn some electromagnetics and start building your back-garden death ray. No explosives or scheduled items necessary! Just an extremely good understanding of nonlinear resonance and spherical harmonics....

    Then turn washington into a single large ball of plasma.

    man 1 tesla ;-)

  74. Back in the old days... by blate · · Score: 1

    Back in the old days (94-96 range) I remember this free service from something like anon.pennet.fi, where you could "bounce" email messages through an anonymizer. You could send emails to... say... newsgroups without revealing your true identity or email address.

    I remember this service being shut down for some nefarious reason several years ago. Perhaps the rise of spanmming lead to this -- I certainly see how an email anonymizer could cause problems. However, if designed and implimented correctly, I can invision a similar system with similar features but fewer spam/security concerns.

    In this day and age, it is often necessary to give out SOME email address and perhaps even be able to receive responses. It would be nice to be able to do so without having to create many ficticious addresses or opening one's self up to spam and abuse.

    1. Re:Back in the old days... by Alien+Conspiracy · · Score: 1
      You can at sudonames.com.

      It's still in an early beta, but useable.

  75. Privacy? No concept you say? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

    Everytime something like this comes up, I tend to want to plagerize an unknown pair of authors as follows:

    Politicians and diapers need changed from time to time, for the same reason.

    Freedom depends on four boxes.
    The soapbox.
    The ballot box.
    The jury box.
    The cartridge box.

    Cheers, Gene

  76. Hidden email addresses on FTC.GOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have a look at the front page of ftc.gov

    If you highlight the section just below Last Updated: Thursday, January 8, 2004 10:05 AM you'll see two "hidden" email addresses (font color set to white.)

    Anyone know what this is about? Spam trap?

    1. Re:Hidden email addresses on FTC.GOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its ok, we just hacked theyre hotmail and yahoo acounts :D

    2. Re:Hidden email addresses on FTC.GOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha. They aren't white on my system because I don't allow web pages to override my local color scheme. And boy do they look stupid right there in the middle of the page. They smell more like cracker graffiti than spam trap to me. Or maybe just web masters/designers with a serious case of brain damage.

    3. Re:Hidden email addresses on FTC.GOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are probably the email address' they used in their fraud. If so it shows great forsite that they would add the email address' so that they will be indexed by google but not show up in the page as a distraction. People who had been scammed might only their email address to search by.

      I doubt that it is just a coincidence that their first initials match the email address.

      "Since the Federal Trade Commission sued them in April 2003, James D. Thompson and Susan B. Germek have been indicted for mail fraud by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Illinois stemming from their Internet auction operation."

    4. Re:Hidden email addresses on FTC.GOV by iphayd · · Score: 1

      They must have switched to white on white email addresses from the pi symbol that allows you to control every computer on The Net.

  77. You insensitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    I'm at someone@place.net!!!


    Yes, it's still a trivial regex, but don't assume ".com".

  78. In Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, obvious comment. This is when the more stringent European privacy laws come in handy.
    If someone gives out any of your personal info AND you didn't explicitly give your previous consent, THEY are breaking THE LAW.
    Not just "their word".

  79. Um... interesting... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Wouldn't this violate the Privacy Act of 1974?
    No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be--

    (1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;

    (2) required under section 552 of this title;

    (3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section;

    (4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13;

    (5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable;

    (6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value;

    (7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;

    (8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;

    (9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee;

    (10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the General Accounting Office;

    (11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or

    (12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of Title 31.
    I don't see "published on a public website" anywhere in there...
    1. Re:Um... interesting... by donheff · · Score: 1

      It certainly would seem that the Privacy Act applies. To conform with the Act Treasury would need to publish prior notice in the Federal Register describing the records they were going to keep and how they would use them (including release of personal information to the public). The Act further requires that the agency post a privacy notice advising people submitting information about how the information will be used. Treasury appears to have posted the appropriate notice and then ignored it.

      A few of the victims should pursue along these lines -- maybe a class action to give a lawyer a few bucks. I doubt the victims could claim much in the way of damages.

    2. Re:Um... interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;


      The spammers show compelling circumstances affecting the length of your *ahem* member; which, everyone must agree, brings a better, healthier active sex life. As for the notification, well, your last known address sure gets notice of it soon, just not in the way you might like.
  80. If... by saberworks · · Score: 3, Troll

    If we can't trust the government with our email addresses, WHY oh why do we trust them with 55% of our income each and every year?

    1. Re:If... by IronicCheese · · Score: 1

      55%?

      Jeeeeezus! What the f--- tax bracket are YOU in?

    2. Re:If... by jea6 · · Score: 1

      A Swedish or Norwegian one. That'd be my guess!

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
  81. Next by craw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The cynic in me tells me that Treasury's "solution" to this is to have people send them comments/complaints.

    Via e-mail.

  82. Re:ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Different AC, but for a historical perspective I'd refer you to the anti-Federalist papers - all written pseudonymously.

    The Supremes have upheld the right to anonymous political speach, and their logic is similar to the librarians (see tatteredcover.com, they were in the lawsuit, there was a page about it on their site)

    Basically, there are times when you need anonyminity to be able to speak freely, like in a voting booth, and to be able to listen freely, like when buying a book, or attending a rally.

  83. Re:Use free email (dead drop) accounts for this st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right and I do the same thing. It's a simple work-around.

    Offering this work-around is all fine and dandy, but if we only use the work-around and ignore the bug in the system then how many other bugs will we have to tolerate.

    You're not working for Microsoft, are you?

  84. If lying is OK, then the gov can do anything. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Do you realize that, if a government feels free to lie, it is corrupt?

  85. The comments in question are posted as RTF by MntlChaos · · Score: 1

    Instead of posting as html, text, or even pdf, they posted all comments as RTF files. WHY?

  86. Old news, they anouced this on Dec. 2, 2003. by Vlad2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Look, it was crappy that they went back on their word but this isn't the beginning of some totalitarian state. The TTB normally receives around 20 comments for something like this and this time they received close to 15,000. They got slahdoted.

    The TTB announced their plans to publish the full content of the emails and letters on Dec 2, 2003. They gave everyone who contacted them a way to prevent their addresses from being published. Granted, not many people read the Federal register but given the budgetary constraints that the TTB has this was the best way.

    Also, everyone is assuming that it is the emails that are the problem. TTB also received 4,800 letters and faxes. Normally they receive about 20 comments. It's really easy to redact information from 20 comments but 4,800 letters, that will take a lot of time and manpower. Taking the info out of the emails requires a technical know-out that maybe out of reach of the person who's main job is dealing with 20 comments at a time. Is the TTB supposed to put out bids for a contractor to come in a write a Perl script to do a job that a person normally does in two minutes with a marker and hitting a few control x's? Is it worth the delay in the public posting the comments?
    1. Re:Old news, they anouced this on Dec. 2, 2003. by psgalbraith · · Score: 1

      Is it worth the delay in the public posting the comments?

      Yes, of course it is. Right to privacy should overrule anything else.

  87. Not as bad as it sounds by CoreyGH · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the article, it seems like they are only going to release contact info that is in the actual text of the email message, for example, if your .sig includes your address. It's easy to separate email messages from email headers; the hard part is catching the contact info that might be in the message itself.

    However, you'd think they'd be able to catch that stuff as they read each email... they do read all the email comments they get, right?

    Anway, unless you include your email address in the body of your email messages you're probably safe. Not good enough in my opinion, but still not as bad as it sounds.

  88. Re:Privacy? No concept you say? by Dratman · · Score: 1

    One of the "authors" this post has "plagerized" uses some perplexing grammar.

    The first time I saw this on an advertising flyer, my host was kind enough to explain to a confused visitor that "Does your driveway need sealed?" was localese for "Does your driveway need TO BE sealed?".

    Likewise, "... diapers need changed" means "diapers need to be changed". ... Which may be true, but I really don't agree about the cartridge box.

    -- Not a Sig ---

    --
    Sigmund
  89. Re:Privacy? No concept you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    >The cartridge box.

    So... Do you have the guts to drop the Secretary of the Treasury and maybe the Chairman of the Federal Reserve... Or are you still satisfied with the status quo and can live another day under the regime?

    I get tired of hearing "revolution this, freedom that," but it turns out to be idle talk from people who don't really lay it down and deliver actions instead of words.

  90. I'm sure they had a good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be a matter of national security. Who knows what evil terrorist acts may be committed if they don't post everyone's email addresses!

  91. weird.... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    this is weird....so much for privacy when you want it....
    hell, I still can't get my exam scores from my university (they site "privacy issues" due to some federal law). what the hell is the point of privacy if the person whose privacy is to be protected, can't even access their own info.

    man...my own axiom that I came up with over a decade ago keeps slapping my ass, "Bureacracy; If it makes sense, it ain't gonna happen." It's probably the most true tautology known to man.

  92. Life without physical money... by djmurdoch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... is life without privacy.

    This story has people complaining that their email addresses are being revealed, and you advocate giving your entire spending history to Visa and its customers?

    1. Re:Life without physical money... by Alphtoo · · Score: 1

      Visa card? That just digs one deeper into the muck! Use a barter system instead. It was around before the first coin was minted, the first bill was printed, and long before the first credit card.

  93. It's only lame this time by flamelord · · Score: 0
    We have a not too bright Web staff working on this project. How hard would it be to automate removing a bunch of email addresses? Not very. Just incompetence this time; not the usual incompetence plus something more sinister. Ahh.... what relief.

    The U.S. Treasury Department plans to publish nearly 10,000 e-mail addresses on the Web, violating its privacy promise to Americans who used e-mail to comment on a government proceeding. In March 2003, the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) asked for e-mail comments about a proposal that could raise the price of malt beverages like Bacardi Breezer and Smirnoff Ice. At the time, the department said that the text of comments would be made public--but assured people that e-mail addresses, home addresses and other personal information of individuals would be removed first.

  94. If you are one of those email addresses... by Suppafly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you are one of those email addresses, you should sue to get an injunction against the gov't. Where is the EFF on this one?

  95. Made difficult due to large number of comments?? by ectoraige · · Score: 1

    Forget perl scripts and so on... surely people are *reading* the comments, and thus could edit them at the same time? They received both emails (cut + paste), and faxes (photocopy + magic marker).

    Unless, of course, they only actually read a sample of the submissions...

    --
    Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
  96. scientologists made it worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the church of scientology got warrants to search and seize their drives and logs to find the posters of secret xenu doctrines or whatever nonsense it was.

    this made them kinda.....worthless.

  97. A smallish idea... SHARE THE LOVE! by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this is done, why not show the people at the treasury WHY it's a bad idea through a little.. Uh. Kinesthetic Learning Excersise.

    Why get the personal names, email addresses, and street addresses of those who made the decision and share the love? Wasn't this sort of thing done with a certain spammer in Michigan?

    You could start with Treasury Secretary John Snow...

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  98. Only 10,000 emails? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

    The email harvesters are going to have a great time.

    10,000 emails is nothing, harvesters grab that amount in less than 30min.

  99. Re:COPPA (Child Online Privacy Protection Act) iss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um... what are children doing commenting about the tax rate on malt beverages?

  100. Re:Worst lesson ever. by Avihson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some fanatic once said something like Live free or die.

    The Breakup of the Soviet Union was Post Nuclear..

    You have to niave as hell to think that any government would nuke their own land. It is one thing to obliterate some far shore but quite another to destroy yourself to prove a point.

    Even The Soviets in all their lunacy were stopped by the doctrine of Mutual Assured Distruction. Yet the New Russian Revolution came to pass, without the massive bloodshed of protracted fighting or the use of nukes.

    That shocked most of the old Pentagon Hawks... USSR going out with a wimper, not a bang

    Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

    So you see those in "power" have no power over me,
    for I am not anonymous nor am I a coward!

  101. My SPAM has a first name... by Necromancyr · · Score: 1

    My SPAM has a first name...it's U-S-T-D.... *sniff* *sniff* Lawsuit? Could be interesting. A lot of companies stand to be screwed over this if they commented...let's see how the administration attempts to make them all happy.

  102. As a side note, is it relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1. Does the government really pay attention to user comments in the first place? (unless you work for a major corporation)

    2. Does the government attribute ANY significance whatsoever to Internet-based feedback?

    3. Who lists a real e-mail address on those stupid forms anyway? As if it would make a difference?

  103. Vote Liberman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe We can get Leah Orgazma for senator!

  104. Spam Can by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    I can just use a dead drop sub-domain that goes to home home connection which is hosting a spam can.

    I use it to bait spam so that I can preemptivly filter it on my real server where bandwidth costs money.

    anything@spam.icarusindie.com is the current sub-domain. Feel free to sign it up for crap. I'll kill the sub domain if it gets too bloated.

    So far I havn't gotten anything to my slashdot@spam.icarusindie.com address in my sig.

    You can get the EXE and Visual Basic source code for the catch-all I'm using.

    http://therabbithole.icarusindie.com/spam

    Ben

  105. Re:COPPA (Child Online Privacy Protection Act) iss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bah!! I just jumped to your conclusion years ago.....

  106. lawmakers must report mtgs with lobbiests by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We had 2 councilmembers turned out in the last election because of illegal contacts with lobbyists.

    This is no different. And the fact is- Cheney was asking the thieves who ripped off California, Oregon and Washington on how to handle the crises they manufactured. Their response was predictable: pollute and drill more.

    Man I hope W time in office expires before the statute of limitations. Kenny-boy? Meet RICO. Then meet your cell-mate Bubba.

    1. Re:lawmakers must report mtgs with lobbiests by workindev · · Score: 1

      So if these meetings were secret and their record has never been published, how to you know what Cheney was asking and what their response was?

  107. Re:Privacy? No concept you say? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which may be true, but I really don't agree about the cartridge box.

    Yeah, well, the founding fathers had in mind that at some time in the future, government might once again get too onerous in its rules and regs designed to perpetuate its existence without regard to the general well being of the populous. Homeland security's recent undercover law passing being a case in point.

    Why else do you think they rather quickly passed the first 10 amendments to our constitution?

    Get a copy, and read them very carefully. Its very educational. Each of them is very carefully crafted to control a runaway government.

    The reference to the cartridge box of course is implicite in the 2nd amendment.

    You may not agree with it, but if push comes to shove, and you are the one on the end of the gangplank being shoved, and it wasn't the jury box containing 12 of your peers that put you there, what would you do?

    I thought so...

    I rest my case.

    --
    Cheers, Gene
    A mostly retired old fart.

  108. High school students? by RachaelAnne · · Score: 1

    A fair number of high school government classes have students do various politically oriented letter writing as "experience" in "being part of democracy" (in quotes because I thought it was lame when I was in high school). Commenting on proposed regulations seems like a reasonable thing to do -- just because the student can't (legally) drink doesn't mean that they could comment on the fairness/benefit of a specific regulation dealing with alcohol (how many kids have made comments about smoking issues in various areas? I opposed a local smoking bad when I was younger than eighteen.)

    Rachael

    --
    "Go Forth Ye Lemmings and Propagate"
  109. And by strange coincidence... by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...they're all Democrats! ;-)

  110. spam the least of your worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Therefore, to ensure that the public has Internet access to the thousands of comments received...at the earliest practicable time, we will post comments received on that notice on our Web site in full, including any street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses contained in the comments."

    and since the names where already going to be included this is about alot more than getting extra spam in your inbox.
    identity theft anyone?

  111. The article only mentions "COMMENTS" to be posted by swankmonkey · · Score: 1

    ".....we will post comments received on that notice on our Web site in full, including any street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses contained in the comments."" To me, this reads that only the body of the email, or "comments" will be posted. Not the origination email address. It sounds like they are having troubles pre-screening the comments, and to help reduce efforts, the entire comments will be posted. All subject to interpretation, of course!

  112. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post lots of comments from using the email addresses of the decision makers at the treasury. If the addresses get harvested by spammers, they will know it.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Mod+Me+God · · Score: 1

      this si a test

      --
      --

      FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
  113. Bush Policies at Work by coaxial · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Bush administration doesn't give a damn about public comments. In fact they despise all input from the "little guy". When they started getting too much negative email about the invasion, they made it so you had to jump through many hoops to send a comment, and then you could only comment on their "approved topics". Not only do they not want to listen to you, they won't tell you who they are listening to.

    They're not conservatives. They're plutocrats.

  114. Pure Lazyness by brendan_orr · · Score: 1

    "The unusually large number of comments received...has made it difficult to remove all street addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the comments for posting on our Internet Web site in a timely manner"
    How hard can it be to simply not include something? I just can't fathom how hard it could be to use only certain fields of a database. Or even use Perl!

  115. Rights? You have no rights. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Free speech is an inconvenience to the Bush administration. They mechanize the rejection of emails to the White House; the Forest Service says don't even bother emailing us; and the TTB (formerly ATF) begs for comments and then renegs on a commitment to maintain privacy because, somehow, a giant government agency can't hire someone to write a sed script to remove the words before and after the @-sign.

    Of course, the ideas of anyone under $10 million net worth don't go anywhere with these guys, anyway.

  116. My address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My address! It's uum.... 1..2...3.... Fake Street!
    Chief Wiggum: 123 Fake Street. Got it.

  117. My guess: by Loundry · · Score: 1

    A higher one than you're in.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  118. gunna start a revolution baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of this "government for the people" bullshit

  119. Similar to the UK by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


    A while ago, the government of the UK started yelling about proposals for universal ID cards (historically, I believe, Britons have not had anything like this, and unless I'm mistaken, a mandatory ID goves against a lot of the traditional principles of English common law.)

    They requested comments, including those sent in per email. For a long time, they utterly refused to consider comments submitted via its Stand website. Finally, they had to admit that generally, the public were opposed to the whole scheme.

    However, if you look at the Queen's last speech (State of the Empire? Wotsitcalled, sorry, forget the name), somehow it slipped in there anyhow.

    Comforting to know we're not the only ones doing stupid shit like this.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    1. Re:Similar to the UK by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      It's just called "The Queen's Speech", which isn't as ambiguous as it sounds because she only makes one speech to parliament per session.
      I think our Data Protection Act would help prevent outrageous abuses of confidential data like this: it can be a bit draconian[0] but this mess has just made me realise its good points!

      [0] It has rather weird consequences, like making it almost impossible to arrange college reunions etc. for people who left before the Act: since personal data may only be used for the purpose for which it was originally collected mere registration data can't be used for that kind of thing, you have to fill out a separate "contact data for organising reunions" form (which is fine for current students, but a PITA for trying to get hold of people who never had to fill in such a form).

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
  120. From the article... by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1
    "The unusually large number of comments received...has made it difficult to remove all street addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the comments for posting on our Internet Web site in a timely manner"

    That's a deeply troubling quote right there, are they removing all this info from the received mail by hand?!?

    I could write a PHP script which just says hello to a pop3 server, pulls down each email, runs a couple of eregi_replace()s on the body (to strp out email addresses and phone numbers) and pumps it into a database... in about 20 minutes. With another 5 to set up the cron job and test it and hey, it's a working solution! - sure, people with an autosignature containing their postal address is going to be a little more complex but not excessively so.

    Your tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen... It sounds to me like your hard-earned cash is employing at least one person to sit at a desk hitting send/receive, copy and paste the body of each email they get into a frontend and then manually remove the email addresses, phone numbers, and postal addresses.

    Seems a little wasteful, doesn't it?
  121. Privacy and the public record by salesgeek · · Score: 1

    I'm really surprised at the level of anger on this issue. If anyone sues, the courts should prevent Treasury from releasing the emails. Nothing will prevent this in the future, though. When commenting on regulatory action by a Federal agency, your comments including postal address and so on usually becomes part of the public record. I commented on the FCC's regulation changes requiring a copy protection flag for digital content. As a result, I actually had opponents of and advocates of the digital flag contact me.

    The price of participating in the public policy is that there is no expectation of privacy. When it comes to rule-making, silence is the price of privacy. Anonymous comments are not of value to regulators (no ability to validate that it is indeed a US citizen or to contact the commentor) who are supposed to use public comment in their decision process (congress has delegated legislative athourity to the agency over a specific area). It's unfortunate that many agencies ignore public comment - but the web has one very positive feature: it's much easier for the public to lear about regulation and much easier for the public to let their voice be heard.

    Just don't expect privacy when participating in government!

    --
    -- $G
  122. Formatting guidelines would've prevented this by goldfndr · · Score: 1

    If they had simply made available a definition or example of how the e-mail should be composed (e.g. anything above or below some number of hyphens would be removed), this could've been prevented. A web form would've been ideal - e-mail/address/phone doesn't even need to be intricate, two multiline text fields would be enough to separate personal info from comment content.

    I'm thinking at least checking/filtering on the vcard spec would take care of a LOT of the personal info.

    One unanswered question: did they attempt to do it partway then abandon, or was it a no-starter?

    --
    Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    1. Re:Formatting guidelines would've prevented this by praedor · · Score: 1

      I would think that the simplest and most hands-free way to do it would simply to have specified TEXT-ONLY emails and a minimal format (your comment followed by a separate address block if such was really needed). No html. Just ASCII. Then, all that is needed is a simple perl script to strip out everything except the body.


      The criminals at the Treasury Dept would then only have to run a perl script on a large, concatenated list of emails and there you have it, the comments sans email addresses or home addresses.


      Being Republicans, they prefer a closed government with LOTS of secrecy. Thus, they prefer to screw those citizens that have the audacity to criticize, or have any expectation of having actual input in how THEIR government is run.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    2. Re:Formatting guidelines would've prevented this by Deternal · · Score: 1
      Being Republicans, they prefer a closed government with LOTS of secrecy. Thus, they prefer to screw those citizens that have the audacity to criticize, or have any expectation of having actual input in how THEIR government is run.

      WOW - that is probably the most biased unrelated comment I ever saw.

      Good thing I don't live in the states then I guess.
    3. Re:Formatting guidelines would've prevented this by praedor · · Score: 1

      Not unrelated at all. This is direct punitive activity against those who had the temerity to actually speak out against a proposed Shrub-era government policy. This is par for the course. Shut down as much FOIA queries as possible. Classify everything. Say nothing (like, for instance, prevent government offices from telling veterans what full benefits are available to them). Hide protesters far away from any Presidential activity so as to make it appear, particularly in all news reports and images, that there are virtually no protests but only support. Par. For. The. Course. Close out public input into how government is run UNLESS said public input is in favor of current policy.


      Totally relevant to the evil of punitively publishing private information about commenters (virtually all of them against the proposed government policy) in order to promot harrassment and intimidation.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  123. Re:Privacy? No concept you say? by lxs · · Score: 1

    I guess now we have to add The inbox on that list?

  124. Re:Worst lesson ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you thinking of La Passionaria?

    "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees?"

    That's the kind of fanatic I'd like to see more of.

    But then, you didn't have to be a fanatic to oppose Franco.

  125. Re: Huh? by Quantum-Sci · · Score: 1

    It looks to me like everybody is pretty much blissfully happy with the general state of affairs, and that the people in the military rank and file are just about as loyal and satisfied as any military organization has ever been in history.

    Really? Is that what you think? Do a search on suicides by US soldiers in this Iraq conflict, and get a shock.

    --
    Campaign finance reform is national security.
  126. Re: CAN Spam by Quantum-Sci · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We have anti-spam laws now. Those will stop the spammers and email harvesters.

    Recommend you broaden your news diet a little bit.

    --
    Campaign finance reform is national security.
  127. Skeletor aka Rumsfeld by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 1

    How about Rumsfeld? He didn't just fall off a turnip truck in 2000 either -- he's been pulling strings in Washington DC since the Eisenhower administration! Did you vote for Rumsfeld? Why didn't he disappear after 8 years in the executive team?

    Oh, its far more obscene than that, my friend. Not only has Rumsfeld's service in Washington continued for nearly two centuries now, but he is, in fact, Skeletor of Eternia! I submit as evidence this google search. Who will be our He-Man?? Howard Dean? Joe Lieberman??

  128. Re: Electronic Money by Quantum-Sci · · Score: 1

    We all use credit cards, which are really the flakiest form of currency ever invented. Pure electrons.

    Sure, they can track us if we use electronic money, and that's a concern especially in an age of subpoenaless power (taken by the ruling Party from Judiciary and given to the Executive branch in December). But I think of even more concern is day-to-day verification. With cash, you can physically, mindlessly count it in each transaction, and it's easily verifiable. But how many of us, at the end of the month, actually reconcile grocery store receipts with our charge statements? Few, I think.

    Without open-source certified proof and automatic self-journalling/reconcile, it's another avenue to be nickel-and-dimed... or wiped out. And without instant transaction extinguishment, it's another avenue for identity/CC# theft.

    --
    Campaign finance reform is national security.
  129. Re: Huh? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    Suicide rate in the military is low compared to the general population. I don't know what's supposed to come as a shock. That being in the military lowers your risk of death by suicide? Or that military recruits are less susceptible to certain mental illness?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  130. I don't think you are arguing seriously by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    There is no doubt about the unseemly affinity of the Bush Administration for the extractive energy industry. Do you really doubt that the secret meetings with oil industry lobbyists (some of whom are known) were actually arguing for rebates for California rate-payers, tax credits for wind-farms, and improved auto fleet mileage and Cheney weighed the merits and decided to issue the piece of shit that he did?

    but in case you are-

    the plan released by Cheney's task force included exempting power plants from environmental regulations and overturning laws and regulations governing their construction. It also contained the only energy policy you'll get from an oilman: "Drill more."

    Which is nuts, of course. Oil resources in the ground are comparable to a bank account, not income. If energy supplies are low, conservation and development of sustainable energy is the way to go. Cheney's group had nothing to say about that, other than "use up oil as fast as possible, and find more except off the Florida coast where we need to assure the President's brother is still on hand to supervise the 2004 election."

    1. Re:I don't think you are arguing seriously by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      And these secret back-door meetings helped out the energy companies soooo much that Enron filed for bankruptcy within a year and the entire sector dropped by almost 50% over the 2 years following it. Either Cheney really sucks at helping out his buddies, or he didn't help them as much as you seem to think.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
  131. Re:Privacy? No concept you say? by Tackhead · · Score: 1

    >Freedom depends on four boxes.
    > The soapbox. The ballot box. The jury box. The cartridge box.

    You forgot the important part of the quotation.

    "Use them in the order listed."

  132. Re:Privacy? No concept you say? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

    "Use them in the order listed."

    Was not included in the tagline I was plagerizing from a rec.guns message. I'll remember that in the future I hope.

    Do you know who originally penned that so the real credit can be given?

    Many thanks, that does complete the picture very nicely.

    Cheers, Gene
    A mostly retired old coot running linux.

  133. The TTB webmaster by rduke15 · · Score: 1

    Well, someone could post this address from their website on some IRC channel and a couple of newsgroups: webmaster@ttb.treas.gov. Or is a /. comment sufficient?

    BTW, I guess this is the webmaster's picture, since "he" says on the front page: "The input you provide can help TTB better serve you and our other customers. Please feel free to email your ideas to us "?

    Note that their TTB Job Postings do NOT include a Perl programmer.

  134. Source for Four Boxes quotation by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > Was not included in the tagline I was plagerizing from a rec.guns message. I'll remember that in the future I hope.

    Heh. I didn't know the source either, and I got it slightly wrong too. After some googling, here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:

    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
    -Ed Howdershelt (Author)

    Source: Ed Howdershelt himself, confirming the origin of the quote, on USENET.

    (Damn. Even in 2004, there are moments when I realize just how unspeakably cool the 'net is.)

    1. Re:Source for Four Boxes quotation by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      I think that whole thing just got added to my .sig file. Thanks a bunch.

      Cheers, Gene

  135. Ain't gonna happen by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    The Military has a tradition of keeping thier noses out of politics witha very few exceptions eg Eisenhower
    This is a good thing no Juntas here

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  136. well when your business model is that crooked... by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    Enron had so many peculiar scams going that of course they went broke. The fact that felonious corruption wasn't enough to save them is not evidence that there was no such felonious corruption.

    In fact, they DID help them. One result was that the Feds denied the California rate payers important relief- release from long term contracts at crises-extorted rates. They also refused to put in aprice cap, which would have defused the crises overnight. (Yeah, I took economics- enough for a minor had they offered one. It's fine stuff for analyzing markets, but classical econ deals wwith a weird definition of market - neither buyer nor seller has enough power to distort the price. This doesn't apply here.) Remember: it's a criminal enterprise to game the market. Collusion among suppliers kept power plants off line, generating artificial shortages and massive windfall profits from selling the remainder. Without the incentive to withhold supply, the plants go online as the former colluders compete to get what they can, and the need for a cap disappears. These suppliers were the same clowns gathered to advise on handling the crises! The Bush administration role was essentially holding down the victim so she wouldn't harm her rapists.