Slashdot Mirror
Identity Theft Skeptic Ends Up As Fraud Victim
An anonymous reader writes "British TV host Jeremy Clarkson recently wrote a newspaper editorial ridiculing the uproar that had occurred after the British government admitted to losing two compact discs containing the personal information on 25 million people. To support his claim about the overhyped risks of identity theft, he published his bank account information in the article. Proving that some identity thieves have a sense of humor, a week later, he found out that someone had set up an automatic bank transfer for $1000 to a diabetes charity from his account. This comes less than a year after the CEO of LifeLock, an identity theft protection company which publishes the CEO's social security number on its website, himself was a victim of financial fraud. Back in July of 2007, a man in Texas was able to secure a $500 loan from a payday loan company using the CEO's widely publicized SSN. Will this latest incident finally prove that identity theft is real, and that publishing your own financial info is an invitation for fraud?"
Plain and simple.
Vescere bracis meis.
Clarkson, you ponce!
And learn what a pickup truck is designed for, would ya?
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you give personal information away freely, is it really accurate to call taking it theft?
Of course, what defrauders do with it might constitute stealing. But that's less "identity theft" and more "money theft" if you ask me.
...but is it art?
That was a pretty arrogant move, even for his standards, and I'm sure he's be humbled (somewhat) after being taken down a peg. I guess that's the price you pay for overconfidence.
Clarkson is the famous tv presenter on Top Gear. He is known for being a pisstaker and joke artist. Calling him a identity theft skeptic is making this sound far too serious. The joke is on slashdot.
I understand how this is funny, but if someone publicly gives out there information in a way to draw attention from the press of course someone is going to do something. It's funny, it's non-news for nerds, and it doesn't matter.
622677120
The US Constitution needs a Privacy Amendment specifying that people's right to privacy in our personal data shall be protected, that no one has the right to copy any such data except as necessary to complete the immediate transaction for which it was transmitted by that person, except under explicit permission from that person.
The 4th Amendment already makes explicit the right to such privacy, but it clearly isn't enough anymore - not for a long time. But since the 4th Amendment itself was merely an emphasis of a right already implicit in the Constitution, but worth repeating explicitly to ensure government protection of it (like the rest of the Bill of Rights), it's perfectly appropriate to reiterate it in terms easily enforceable in the current era, like copyright terms.
--
make install -not war
How in hell is this possible?
Isn't your bank the only institution able to transfer money out of your account? Don't you have to show your ID? Don't you have to sign some documents???
My opinion is ID theft is only possible because the clerks in the banks are too lazy to check for an ID or a signature. Whenever you go to a bar in the US, they will look at your ID before they serve booze, but if you set up a $xxxx account/load no one will ever check it. This is just how ridiculous the system is. Account number without proof of identity should be as useless as a car without gas.
It seems like making people paranoid about protecting their personal data is the wrong way to attack the problem, especially given the significant chance that whatever they do, some 3rd party will release that data and put them at risk.
Instead, we should remove the incentive for identity theft and make it MUCH more onerous and difficult to get anything worthwhile out of stolen financial data.
Plus, it'd be nice to not get those 10-15 credit card offers a week in the mail.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
During the news segment this season. He somehow blamed it on using his credit card at the gas pump, whether or not it was while filling up his Lamborghini he didn't say. James May did not say "oh cock" to this.
I wonder if he poked sticks into his own eyes ... after all, he did exactly the same thing, the only exception being that he did it to himself, rather than to others.
I can only hope he continues to contribute to the charity so he can stay humble.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
To be fair what happened was someone set up a Direct Debit in his name, where a company or organisation can deduct money directly from your bank account. These are _very_ common in the UK, much more so than direct bill payment in the US.
One of the reasons they are so common is that every transaction under them is covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee. Under this, he can get an immediate refund from his bank just by asking.
The process of being approved to collect direct debits is pretty arduous, as the banks bear a lot of the costs if something goes wrong. At the same time, the consumer has a level of protection light years beyond that offered in the US for similar transactions.
It's not that uncommon for friends exchanging money in the UK (say someone borrowed some cash for a night out) to simply hand over their bank details and get the money from their friend as an electronic transfer using online banking. In general it'd be pretty difficult for someone to take money from an individual's bank account, even knowing their details for their own benefit. I'm not even sure most online banking in the US lets you deposit money directly into another person's account?
I still hear the LifeLock commercials on the radio as I drive to work all the time. I don't see how they can prevent someone from stealing your identity, especially if you're dumb enough to give out the information to people who will use it for nefarious purposes. If all there offering is a service to undo the damage, that might be useful given how time-consuming it is, but then can they necessarily represent you to organizations where you need the information changed or charges nullified?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The information he gave out was the same information a person gives out when they hand over a check. It's analogous to a pundit loudly proclaiming that it is perfectly safe to walk around outside. This is then demonstrated by walking through a large crowd of people. Somebody decides to prove otherwise & stabs them in a non-lethal manner solely to illustrate the point.
Insert Foot.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Regarding the recent loss of CDs containing data on 25 million UK people, Clarkson says: "We must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy."
Can't argue with that.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
With all the money being lost in this kind of crime you'd think the vulture lawyers would be swarming all over the poor practices by financial companies. These companies have lots of money to "liberate". The crimes are utter negligence.
In Soviet Russia, identity steals YOU
God look at me, I'm just a man, but you tell me I'm not just a man, so hard to understand, after all, I'm just a man.
A lot of people are very naive about the security provided by credit cards and checking accounts.
I used to run credit cards and EFT as part of a previous job, and I was responsible for setting up the system. The only thing I need for an electronic funds transfer is your bank routing and account numbers. All that information is available on a voided check.
The only security you have, is that it's difficult to complete these kinds of transactions anonymously. Bank fraud is a big deal if you are caught.
The same is true of credit cards. Your signature is a contract promising to pay. It protects the business against customers reversing charges on purchased goods. It is not used for authentication of any form.
Identity theft - how hard can it be?
(And if you don't get it, watch Top Gear.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Actually, it doesn't say that he was a victim of "identity theft". It says that he is an "Identity Theft Skeptic" and that he is a "Fraud Victim". The article called the crime "identity fraud" which seems accurate. Somebody said "These is my account information, please accept my money." - Perfectly describable as "identity fraud" and nearly enough for the article submitter to assume that the fraudsters were "identity thieves" as he described them.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
It's funny, it's non-news for nerds, and it doesn't matter.
Every SINGLE article has some troll saying that the article doesn't belong on slashdot, and subtly insulting the readers for being interested in it.
Identity theft is a HUGE problem, and it also happens to be one in which many geeks are keenly interested. This particular story is interesting not only because it is identity theft related, but because it indicates that the public eye is being more drawn to the issue, and being forced to realize the seriousness of it.
The story matters. The story is definitely news for nerds. Just because YOU find it boring doesn't mean that it doesn't qualify as a significant slashdot story.
Yes, I realize that I just fed a very self-absorbed troll. All apologies.
He was wrong and went on to say so
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
In the UK you can only set up a direct debit to certain registered things, one of them being charities.
The pranksters couldn't have set up direct debit to their own account, for example.
No sig today...
In America the big one is the Automated Clearing House. That's how you do thing like automatic bill pay or such if you want. The company you are paying tells the bank "The customer for this account said I could have this much money," and the bank transfers it. Now the balance on this is that you don't just hop on the network. I can't just go and do an ACH debit from your account. Those that are part of the network are subject to strict regulations, once of which being you have to say it is ok for them to take money from your account. If they just do it without permission, they are in trouble.
However, you would be right in thinking that this isn't perfectly secure. We live in a world of imperfection, however, and usability is balanced against security all the time.
What really annoys me is I cancelled an Amex card over a year ago, and they still accept automatic debit charges.
I got a statement only yesterday from an ISP I forgot to change my card with. I rang Amex and said, please reject the charge, but they outright refused saying even though the card was cancelled, my 'contract' of automatic direct debit takes precedence.
46137
Clarkson is primarily an entertainer. 500 quid for a gag like this is pretty cheap. Like all entertainers, Clarkson takes liberties with the truth. I would not be suprised if the whole thing is a scam done for a bit of a laugh.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
UK law allows you to set up direct debits to certain registered entities without too much verification. The pranksters simply chose one of them.
There's no way a thief could transfer money to their own account (in theory).
No sig today...
...that there is such thing as an identity theft skeptic. What idiots don't believe that it is possible? It's somewhat like being skeptical of the moon.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
From wikipedia: "Identity theft is a catch-all term for crimes involving illegal usage of another individual's identity."
if you don't mind ,is it still available on the web site?
every day? He steals your tater tots."
If a crime bas been committed the police have good reason to seek to have privacy doors opened - perhaps with the oversight/approval of a judge. Recent UK legislation is giving civil servants wide investigation powers - without judicial oversight.
This smacks of an excuse.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It says they took £500, not $1000.
I'm so sure that my cyber-crime computer lessons will do everything I claim that I want you to try them for FREE*. If you're not completely satisfied, I'll even refund your shipping and processing fee. It's that simple. Try my product. You have nothing to lose and a wealth of computer skills to gain. John W. Scherer
Can this topic come up and not a single person asks ANY of the following questions:
1. I get someone elses ssn, and I'm off to the bank. (or whatever) Why is the process that associates a unique identifier (U.S. = SSN) with financial activity so simple?
2. Why does "sucks to be you" suffice every single time this issue comes up?
3. While individual financial data is available to the financial institutions, it's totally opaque to the consumer. Ex. how is my credit score calculated? How come consumers have practically no control over it?
4. The risks of an easy credit system far outweigh the benefits and yet no one seems to acknowledge this. An indirect example of this is the bad packaged loans that are driving the current "credit crunch."
Transparency is the keystone to a healthy economy and yet there's less and less with each passing year.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It is named after an Italian mapmaker, from drawings that did not feature the country you're discussing.
You may resume defending your rights.
You can't take the sky from me...
The Constitution has nothing to do with protecting one person from another. The Constitution grants certain rights to the government and spells out certain procedures of government. Other than prohibiting the keeping of slaves, it does not concern itself with anything that is not a government act. Please pay more attention in class.
The report here should not be that some person had their identity stolen.
The report should be that some dumb bank transferred funds without checking identity.
The sooner we put the right focus on this problem, the better. It shouldn't be called identity theft. It should be called bank malfeasance.
When somebody walks into Citi bank and tells the teller my name, the teller shouldn't hand all my cash over to that person. That isn't identity theft; it is complete incompitence, or worse, collusion.
Don't report the name of the person whose account was abused. Report the name of the bank, and the name of the employee that allowed it. Put the focus where it belongs on these crimes. And in the case of this high profile personality, at least report that he has decided that Bank XYZ is completely incompetent and has moved his account to Bank ABC (complete with new bank account #).
You've confused identity thief with identification thief. Identity thief is impersonating someone for financial gain and rarely (almost never) involves stealing identification papers.
If someone steals money from my account it is totally up to bank to deal with it, I usually don't care and in only one occasion when something happened I got my money back in hours. Law should put all responsibility in these cases on thieves and companies who failed to verify identity. If companies and financial institutions would be held responsible for not validating customer's identities properly I guess identity fraud cases will drop dramatically. If they afraid to make few extra checks in fear of losing few customers why would others suffer? My grandmother used to say "Trusting people is just a romantic stupidity".
Interestingly, A little under 40,000 people in the UK want Jeremy Clarkson as Prime Minister, and have signed a petition on the Downing Street web site http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/PMClarkson/. Ironic that the reason he got stung was trying to disprove the risk of ID theft after the recent child benefit data loss. I guess he really is suited for the job.
God, Clarkson is a Genius, yes, he may act like an idiot sometimes (case in point) but for humerous value, it's incredible, and he is a guy you can relate to - everything he says, if you agree with it or not, you can see where he is coming from, and laugh at the way he presents it. Much like Zero Punctuation or for the more adventurous, Encyclopedia Dramatica. Recently there was a petition signed by many on the UK Government's website for Clarkson to become prime minister - everyone likes the guy. He always does the thing deep down we all want to do - the stupid thing that seems the most fun(ny).
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Most of you have scoffed for years at anyone using security-through-obscurity in any security model at any level, yet by making fun of people who have been exploited for revealing account information in public you are clearly upholding the principle.
Genius.
He's not going to lose anything. The Direct Debit guarantee will see he gets every penny back. You won't see anyone transfer cash out of his account via any method other than via Direct Debit. His point really is proved so far.
And many computer users do nothing to stop the breaches on their computer.
I showed a friend (high up attorney) who does some legal work at home, though his kids do most of the time on his HP, that someone has control of his PC. 60-90% CPU cycles going constantly with no applications running while on his DSL line. Warned him of the consequences.
6+ months later, he has not changed a thing. What can you do?
Next I'll find out they threw a key logger on his machine and stole something, and he will be complaining.
Not revealing your social security number isn't "security through obscurity" any more than not leaving the combination of the safe on a post-it note stuck to the safe door is.
An example of "security through obscurity" would be "nobody knows about this money I have hidden in my sock drawer, so it must be safe."
Gee, did I just fall for a troll?
I don't care why you're posting AC
I think this is possible only because people confuse information about an identity with that identity, and therefore believe that knowledge of that information proves that the person is who they say they are.
I think there's way too many people and organizations with legitimate access to all kinds of information about me for me to consider that my SSN (or an account number that's printed on every statement that goes through the mail, or 16+4+3 digits on a credit card) is a good shared secret between me and my bank (or employer, or anyone.) Then, there's all the people who have illegitimate access.
We still use this because... it works "well enough." Banks make enough that they can cover the loss from a few fraudulent loans. And a person having to clean up a credit record is a PITA, but it's doable. And it's an externality from the bank's perspective.
Thinking about this, I don't have a real solution. It's advisable to guard your psudo-secrets, when you can. A law or two to help this might help, but not get rid of the problem. Until someone comes up with a good identifier[1], we're stuck with it.
[1] For values of "good identifier" that include a way that one person can prove they are the same person who established the good credit / made the bank deposit / whatever, including letting someone act as a limited agent of another (so the power company can take my electricity bill out of my account, but not let a rogue employee take all my money and buy Enron stock) and also doesn't let someone establish multiple identities with which to keep ripping off banks and others.
Not really, because he actively disclosed sensitive information. He made no attempts to hide it in plain sight, which would be a more passive, and security-through-obscurity-style, approach. Security through obscurity is still a terrible practice.
Your ad here.
IIRC charities have to go through a LOT of @#$% when they have to refund money for reasons like this. Worst case scenario they LOSE a bit of money handling the fake donation and then refund... I don't know too much of the specifics but at any rate it's mean.
When someone does this, they're not hurting just the person they're stealing from, they're also hurting the charity.
Fools tread where angels fear. I don't think any service or anything will stop ID thief. The problem is the mis-use of the social security number for "identification" purposes even under the law the social security number is not supposed to be used for that. We another method of identification that cannot be duplicated or stolen and that sounds like a tall order but this needs to done so we all can safe from ID thief.
Besides the fact of your positing one in assumption, I see no difference in principle.
If revealing one's SSN (or the address to one's house, or one's middle name) is a foolish act that decreases security, it stands to reason that keeping one's SSN obscured is an effective security measure.
He published is information, and the only thing that happened was an automatic withdraw?
If it was as rampant as people are bing led to believe, his account wold have been empty.
Yes, it exists, but I don't think it's worth the panic people tend to go into.
Of the millions and millions of people whose information has been stolen or lost or were copied froma computer system, only a very tiny fraction have been the victims of identity theft.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I mean, 60%-90% CPU cycles while doing nothing would be normal then, right?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
It isn't illegal to give your social security number to anyone but it is illegal for someone to use that number to steal your shit. So the story here is not that some people poo-poo the threat of identity theft (myself included), but that there are thousands of a-holes out there that will break the law to rip you off. Criminals suck, and this is just one more way they can continue to be the useless burdens to society they already are.
Ummm
Nobody is suggesting that revealing your SSN is a good idea, but if that is all you are doing, you are probably not secure. So you are careful about your SSN, but at the same time you have a facebook account where you reveal you name, address, birthday, all of your family members, where you have worked before etc, I could probably get just about anything on you.
Say you come in to a store I work in, and my store (like of lot of them do) prints out you full credit card number on the store copy of the receipt. So I go to facebook (or myspace, or even your personal blog if you happen to have one) and I find out your birth date. Now I can call Visa's 800 number, enter you credit card number and your birth date and have full access to your Visa account. I can order new cards, request a higher credit limit or even additional cards, change the address you statements are mailed to etc.
I can use this information to approach other financial institutions and apply for further credit. If someone wants to confirm that I am you, what are they going to ask me? Your mother's maiden name? Or maybe they have other security questions, like the name of your high school or a former employer. Well, that's all available from the resume you have up on your blog, or your facebook account. Or whatever.
The point is, "security through obscurity" isn't a bad idea if it's just one of several things you do to protect yourself. But if you are saying "I'm okay cause I don't reveal my SSN" but meanwhile are hemorrhaging personal info by giving your phone number, name etc to save a few pennies every time you make a purchase, or putting bills or other documents in the trash without shredding them, or basically not taking pains to keep your private info private all the time, then you security model is not effective.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Ok, let's stop being idiotic right here. Security through obscurity doesn't refer to the password, it refers to the system. I bet my linux box is quite secure as it is now, but if I gave you my root password surely things wouldn't be quite as dandy.
So, in the real world example, S-T-O would mean that we don't know how the baking system works, but we trust it to be secure even when a bank account number is leaked. On the contrary, we could use the security by desing approach, when we know exactly the way bank accounting works, so we can spot flaws and resolve them (this way we can simulate hypothetical situations like "I've got a bank account number, what steps can I follow to take advantage of that fact and make myself rich?" If the answer is none, our system's secured against that attack, being free and all).
And, as a sidenote in case you haven't got it yet, keeping my root password away from strangers' eyes doesn't make it S-T-O.
My 0.02 cents
Good news about our increased chocolate rations, though!
You can't take the sky from me...
Just as a point of relevance here, Clarkson was victim to a fraudulent direct debit, not a standing order. While both are useful for similar things, the mechanics in the two cases are quite different.
A standing order is normally some sort of regular payment you set up yourself for a constant amount, such as a monthly rent payment to a landlord. A direct debit is set up by the recipient and can vary in amount and date it is collected, and is typically used for paying things like utility bills, where the money owed varies a bit from month to month.
The key difference, for the purposes of debunking the hype here, is that because of the obvious danger in letting a third party instruct your bank on your behalf and then withdraw your money remotely, all direct debits are covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee. Among other things, this says that if something goes wrong, your bank must refund your missing money first and ask questions later. A corollary of the latter is that Clarkson is unlikely to have any trouble getting his missing money back here, ironic and amusing as the incident is.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Certainly, let's. Do you also argue against people telling others what their full name is?
mmmmmmmmmmm what?
One thing I wonder though... if the fraud occurs because somebody stole your bank details, then that's one thing and perhaps the bank should cover it. Now if somebody sets up a withdrawal because you idiotically and deliberately provided the world with your bank info, I personally would see no reason the bank should cover this.
What we need is a FTC rule that says that any business or financial institution that uses an SSN as a password is prima facie liable for any fraudulent transaction facilitated thereby. Plus a penalty of $500 or so.
SSNs shouldn't have to be a secret. Since they're fixed for life, they're terrible passwords, anyway.
Before you try the UPS tracking number... I did and it's not valid.
As for the other information, if the simplest and the most interesting of them is wrong then I'm not trying the rest.
$META_SIG_JOKE
I'm gumma fang que fo dat :)
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
There's a difference between saying "The terrorists don't scare me" and flying internationally anyways, and running naked through Tikrit with a bullseye painted on your ass with red lipstick. Publishing your banking information doesn't just invite the evildoers, it invites the average joe, who will just say "Hell, anyone can hit that target from here".
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Won't work in the USA. Most Americans don't have Passports. Not even sure I do, anymore - it may have expired since the last time I had a reason to need it.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
From the bloopers:
..And the news today...it has been officially announced that Jeremy Clarkson is an arse!
James May:
IMHO, the phrase "identity theft" is not very meaningful. I'd say that if they steal a document and use it to take some money from you, then they've stolen a document and committed fraud. But if they create a false document using accurate information they got legally, and use the false document to take some money from you, then it's just fraud.
Better reroll on this one ;)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
let's imagine grandma is actually 'sister,' and is 34 instead of 94. and she wants to buy a house. she applies for pre-approval loan when she is getting serious, and it is denied because of her extremely scary credit. "What!!" She says.. she thought she had perfect credit.. she pays her bills on time, etc.
But in the last six months, someone who obtained her vital info took out several credit cards in her name and ran them to the limit, took out a few paycheck cash advance loans, etc. Maybe they even sold her info to some other people, who brokered it to illegal aliens to use as a proxy identity so they could work in a factory somewhere as "legals." So now she has a dozen credit cards in her name, all maxed out. A couple cash advance places who've sent her to collections. A letter from the IRS asking her to please mail a check for the $2900 in taxes she owes them.. etc. If sister EVER wants to purchase a house, or do anything that at all involves her credit, this has BECOME her problem, not just the problem of some "dumb entity" that lent the wrong person money. In some extreme instance, she might even be sued, have to get a lawyer, etc. LOTS of time (literally.. years) wasted to clear all this up, and lots of money spent, so she can eventually.. maybe.. get back to the life that went on hold once her credit was ruined by spurious info.
This is made up, but it's close to several real life instances I've read about.. instances that are quite typical.
I hate Clarkson. I think he's a complete twat, but having a said that he does have the guts to admit he made a complete prick of himself in public. Some other public figures might do well to follow that lead if nothing else.
Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
well, as one who suffered from a case of identity theft, I can tell you, there are repercussions! In my case, The tale starts back in February of 1995. It seems someone used my identity and then had me declared deceased. Whats even more serious, the Social Security Administration took the information at face value WITHOUT following up to confirm. This caused me problems with acquiring income, living in my apartment and even continuing my education. Some of these problems still exist to this day (I am unable to get good credit and signing up for a bank account is an exercise is futility). take it from me folks, this problem is real and it will bite you IN THE ASS if you are not careful about keeping your information confidential. BTW, I never did find out who was responsible, though I did get a written apology from the Social Security Administration for their part in the problem.
There's no reason the direct debit couldn't have been larger or that there couldn't have been multiple direct debits. It almost certainly wasn't for the very reason someone was merely disproving his point, which they did rather effectively.
Also he's somewhat more protected than Joe average, if someone tries to make, say, a fake passport under the name Jeremy Clarkson but with their photo and try to use it any customs officer is going to laugh that someone thinks they can pass themselves off as a well known TV celebrity - especially one that's publicly handed out all his personal details!
There's nothing to say now of course that more people aren't going to follow suit and try and screw him either of course.
If anything, his absolutely and entirely disproved his point - even he accepts this! Besides, £500 is still no small amount to lose for an awful lot of people.
It's more subtle than that.
Bank gives away £500 without proper authorisation = their money, their problem.
You get your identity stolen = your identity, your problem.
See how a subtle change in terminology puts the onus on you rather than the bank?
Not everyone likes the guy. Some folks realise he's intentionally an ass to get great reactions from folks. He does make great TV, but it's contrived. It's presented as non-scripted, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I like a lot of what he does, but I wouldn't trust him with anything important.
You can only see where he's coming from if like him you rely on completely and utterly missing the point.
To cite an example, he said electric cars are pointless in terms of saving the environment because the electricity to power them still has to come from a polluting power plant.
Of course, this misses the point about moving power generation to clean technologies.
Frankly the guy is thick as pig shit but of course this appeals quite well to the idiot majority. This article only further proves how utterly thick he is.
They transferred £500, not $1000.
It was done in the UK using Stirling, not in the US using US$
...final order was bike, boat, public transport and last- car. So they are pretending to bemoan that Top Gear is ruined by this (it's rush hour in London, they knew well the car wouldn't be winning.) But back in the studio they then joke that the film was misleading and the boat blew up, Richard Hammond flew off his bike onto a railing and that the car actually won.
Grammar matters.
In english, "america" was shorthand for "the english colonies of america". That stuck, and as a shorthand, it can be used correctly in conversation.
Saying "in America, we have rights..." is correct.
Defining "america" as only the states in the middle of the northern half of it is wrong, in the same way that saying "the world" and meaning only the 50 united states is wrong.
Talking about Hawaii and calling it America is insane
You can't take the sky from me...
It is better as an inside joke. Don't you know anything? Coward?
If you feel so sure of it, post your credit card number and we'll see
I don't care why you're posting AC
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, that and the fact that everyone else uses "identity theft" in a way that matches the description. Sorry that you don't like that the individual words don't mean exactly what the term does, but I guess you'll have to pull the stick out of your ass at some point in your life.. might as well be today.
Now, the first point is a character flaw, but it's not worrisome.
The second point is somewhat troubling, because you don't seem to grasp some very basic concept there, but the third point shows that your disconnect with history is tremendous.
I highly recommend that you take some kind of history class as soon as possible. Before you vote in any election, at the very least. In the meantime, refrain from exposing your thought process in open, public forums, you risk embarrassing yourself, and you're just adding noise to the signal.
You can't take the sky from me...
"'Secure in their persons, papers and effects' necessarily means privacy"
NO it doesn't. It means secure in their papers and effects, your INTERPRETATION means that it relates privacy.
The fact that you're an imbecile doesn't make you right just because you say so.
"The Constitution is a description of the real world, not just some word game, you stupid shit."
Is the word "privacy" in there or not?
It's not. So it requires INTERPRETATION. YOU fuck off, now that you've been shut the fuck up.
You're a sad case
You can't take the sky from me...