No, unfortunately you are wrong and Nancy is correct. HIPAA only protects against covered entities selling your medical information. Covered entities are only health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses. A lot of people don't understand that Google and sites like WebMD collect everything you search for and sell that information even if it is medical information. WebMD in their privacy policy states that they "Send you relevant offers and informational materials on behalf of our sponsors pertaining to your health interests."
Your ISP has no issue selling your medical web searches or if you mention your medical condition in e-mails or other traffic they monitor. Mobile providers have in the past and may again in the future install spyware on cell phones that monitors any health data mentioned on your cell phone. The spyware may even watch you login to your health care provider and what you see. They aren't a covered entity so anything they can find out they can sell.
Selling social security numbers is legal in most states. There are a few states like Illinois that have passed laws requiring a company to get your consent before selling it. Even in those states there is nothing stopping the company from burying it in your mobile contract or a company having it in an EULA.
I am not a lawyer, but if a company sold your SSN and it was used to steal your identity, then they could likely be held liable. However, if your identity is stolen, determining the source of where the identity thief got the information could be quite difficult.
If you want a real life example, SAP currently works with mobile providers to sell customer data points to businesses when you walk in the door with its "Consumer Insight 365" product.
Basically, when your cell phone goes through the door the business is provided with information like:
Your Name Your Address Your Phone Number Your E-mail Address Your Age Your Gender Your Household Income What products you have recently been searching for Your marital status Your sexual orientation Your religion Your interests How long you spent in the store Where you came from (previous 10 locations)
And a whole ton more information. I haven't actually been able to find a complete list of what they provide. The above list is based on marketing slides for the product. The SAP data obviously comes from multiple sources, not just mobile providers.
Mobile providers are currently making an estimated $24 billion a year selling their part of the information. That is what they stood to lose if the FCC regulation had gone into effect.
A lot of ISPs and most mobile providers require you to provide your SSN to sign up so that they can run a credit check. Some provide the option of refusing if you leave a large deposit when signing up. Verizon for example, is a $400 deposit I believe if you refuse to provide SSN. Comcast I think is $250. YMMV.
During the debate Nancy Pelosi actually put up a sign with a few things this bill allows selling:
"Republicans want this information to be sold without your permission"
The websites you visit
The apps you use
Your search history
The content of your emails
Your health & financial data
Financial information includes your name, address, SSN, and phone number. This will also be attached to your browsing history and other data. A lot of ISPs and mobile providers require SSN when you sign up, they claim so that they can run a credit check. Now, it's also so that they can sell it.
It also sounds like they can also sell the contents of voice calls and SMS too if they want.
Using encryption doesn't really protect you either. 1) It doesn't prevent metadata. 2) Some carriers plan on using spyware on your cell phones so that they even have access to encrypted data. This would also prevent VPNs from being of any use.
A Democrat (I forget who) before this was passed even read about Verizon's patent for a cable box with thermographic camera, microphone, and motion sensor. It includes a "cuddle detector" so that it can show ads for condoms when it detects people "cuddling" in front of the TV.
Microsoft applied for a patent for cable box and console technology that will detect how many people are in the room and allow copyright owners to block content if too many people are in the room. For example, if you buy a PPV fight and invite too many people over it will refuse to play.
Comcast applied for a patent for a cable box which detects who is in a room and personalizes ads based on the person or people in the room.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in AT&T v. FTC that the FTC has no authority over common carriers. This FCC rule that Republicans got rid of filled the gap from that court decision. After that court decision a bill was introduced to give the FTC that authority to reverse the court decision, but most Republicans voted against the bill and it failed.
So Republicans argument is: FCC shouldn't regulate privacy because that is the FTC's job. FTC shouldn't regulate common carriers because that is the FCC's job.
So who regulates common carrier's privacy? Now, it's no one.
In addition, congress only gave the FTC the authority to pass actual regulations if there "unfair or deceptive acts" and they can prove the regulation prevents harm. Some Republicans argue there is no harm from companies spying on you because you save money or get services for free. Some also argue that seeing ads tailored to you is in your benefit.
This bill wasn't about doing what was right though. It was all about money. ISPs and mobile providers stand to make a lot of money by invading our privacy. They had no problem paying off politicians to pass this bill:
The supreme court did uphold the conviction as they found they had acted in bad faith and for the advantage of a foreign government. The supreme court established the guidelines on what was required and said that in the Gorin case those requirements were met.
Gorin claimed "the innocuous character of the evidence forbade a conclusion that petitioners had intent or reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation." The supreme court found that the "reports, in short, are a part of this nation's plan for armed defense." The supreme court ruled that they weren't innocuous and could be used to the advantage of the foreign nation (Russia) to which they were provided. Therefore, the second part of the condition I quoted above held and the intent argument was invalid.
Yes, Republicans used their only African-American senator, Time Scott, to speak for Jeff Sessions. No big surprise that he is supporting his party.
Saying that Corretta Scott King was thanking Jeff Sessions for the Rosa Parks Library is rather misleading. She was just acknowledging his presence. There was no thank you in the speech to Jeff Sessions. He was just acknowledged as being there along with all the other notable people in attendance. She was given a list of names to read for the opening of the library; his name was on the list. If you actually watch the video she has to pause and force herself to even read the name and she does not look happy about it.
Jeff Sessions was not liked by Coretta Scott King, you can read her letter for yourself:
Sean Spicer said “I can only hope that if she was still with us today, that after getting to know him and to see his record and his commitment to voting and civil rights, that she would” regret her opposition. In some right wing news this is being used as a claim that if Coretta Scott King were alive today she would support Jeff Sessions; that is another alternative fact being put out by the right.
Jeff Sessions has a 20% voting record on civil-rights according to the ACLU, which are some of the major issues it is now his job to protect. He has a 7% voting record for African-American issues according to the NAACP. Jeff Sessions has called the NAACP, the ACLU, and other civil rights groups "un-American."
Jeff Sessions allegedly told a black attorney that the Ku Klux Klan was "OK until I found out they smoked pot." Sessions used to call a black assistant U.S. attorney that worked for him, Thomas Figures, "boy." When asked about the comment "Sessions apologized and said the remark was a joke." Personally, I don't accept the excuse every time a politician is caught making a racist statement that they were just making a joke and telling an African-American that you think the KKK is OK isn't very funny.
Jeff Sessions believes government services should only be available in English even though the US has no official language.
Jeff Sessions refused to support the removal of a racist judge who said black people "don't want to work" and that affirmative action is repugnant. Sessions said that the judge was "insensitive at worst."
Oxford English Dictionary (online): A person who is sexually attracted to children.
Merriam-Webster: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. (second definition is pre-pubescent).
Urban Dictionary: A person who suffers from Pedophilia; that is, an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
WordNet: An adult who is sexually attracted to children.
Macmillian: An adult who is sexually attracted to children.
Dictionary.com: An adult who is sexually attracted to young children.
Maybe at one point it was specific to pre-pubescent, but that is not how it is generally used today. Dictionary.com is the only one I checked that even includes "young".
child:
Oxford: A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority:
Meriam-Webster: c : a person not yet of age
Macmillian: a young person from the time they are born until they are about 14 years old.
Dictionary.com: a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:
Maybe you should actually try looking it up in the dictionary before trying to correct me? Yes, a few dictionaries could back up your interpretation, but the majority don't.
If you think it is OK for 60+ year old men to sleep with or event flirt with 10-13 year old girls, then I think you are sick. I think the age of consent could be more lax in the case of 19-20 year-olds with 16-17 year-olds, but I don't think that's what you are talking about.
Even if you go by your definition of puberty, it still probably applies to the 10-year-old(s?) he has hit on.
I didn't have any falsehoods about deleting e-mails. It's all based on the media intentionally or misunderstanding IT. The FBI report is pretty clear that they had access to all e-mails. The deletions were temporary and duplicate copies. I go into detail in some of my other posts.
Clinton may have violated her non-disclosure agreement, but the worst penalty in the NDA she signed was that she could be to be terminated from the job or losing access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI); neither of which she had anyways by the time the FBI investigated.
As I stated in another post, intent does matter for 18 793 (f) according to the supreme court in Gorin v. United States. You can't just read a law as a layman and interpret it. You have to look at precedent too. The supreme court ruled that prosecution requires "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Comey was correct that she could not be prosecuted because there was no intent.
Bleachbit according to the FBI report was used to delete temporary.pst files that were used as "vehicles" to move files between mail servers and the administrative server and also to delete a duplicate copy of an old e-mail archive. It was also used to delete one copy of the data sent to a law office after the e-mails had been sorted.
The post on Reddit wasn't about purging correspondence it was about how to search and replace Clinton's e-mail address with a placeholder so that her e-mail address wouldn't become public record. The IT company (PRN?) apparently didn't trust the FBI redaction not to miss one. It wasn't anything malicious like the news articles implied.
They didn't keep finding more missing e-mails. They took a long time to go through the e-mails they already had. They kept finding e-mails in what they already had that were relevant to the investigation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
When they got a hold of the Wiener/Abedin e-mails the reason they were able to go through them so quickly is that they already had all the Clinton e-mails, they just had to go through the ones that were about Clinton that weren't addressed to her.
As I stated, she deleted her personal e-mails before handing them over to the FBI. They said that wasn't sufficient so she handed over a copy with all the current data (both personal and business) along with physical and cloud backups. There were numerous news articles about "14,900" or "15,000" missing e-mails that the "FBI found" when Clinton handed over the full copy of personal and business data, but it turned out only a dozen of those e-mails were actually business, the rest were personal. The FBI didn't really "find" them when they were handed to them and they weren't really "missing" when personal e-mails were intentionally left out of the initial copy sent to the FBI.
The whole issue with "deleted" e-mails was based on the news media not understanding the concept of data being stored in multiple locations and misunderstanding the FBI report investigation into the deletion of every temporary file in the audit logs. It's pretty clear some of the right wing media was trying to be deliberately misleading and some mainstream media fed into it too probably for the clicks.
Also for the House Benghazi Committee preservation order to apply instead of the FBI preservation order, I believe that.pst file would have had to contain Benghazi e-mails and there is no indication that it did. The CNN article you linked makes that assumption, but I don't know what evidence they base that on.
For example, this article states that the preservation order was only for Benghazi e-mails:
Again, you and the article make it sound like something was actually deleted. First of all, even in the article it says the tech wasn't asked to delete anything by Clinton, so even if he did it wouldn't be her crime. That said, from the actual FBI report it doesn't sound like he did anything wrong. The report just documents every time e-mail was deleted in the audit logs including temporary and duplicate copies of data.
The quotes in the article are reworded and rearranged from the actual FBI report. I don't know why they don't match exactly. It is also combining different parts of the report to create a different impression. The actual text referenced about the archive deletion is on page 25 of part 3 of the FBI report and other parts of the quotes are from page 103. The actual FBI report just says "However, [] believed he had an "oh shit" moment and removed the HRC Archive mailbox. He also changed the mailbox retention policy from 30 days to 1 day, and cleaned the mailbox database because MILLS previously requested in late 2014 or early 2015 he change the retention policy for CLINTON and ABEDIN's existing and outgoing email to 60 days. He removed the HRC Archive mailbox manually because all content in the mailbox was older than 60 days." Although if you read the surrounding text you learn that the HRC Archive mailbox was a duplicate copy of old e-mails and they were retained elsewhere. I really don't have an explanation what the tech was doing other than trying to make it seem like the server was configured the way it had supposed to be (maybe to cover himself not having configured it the way he had been asked?). He didn't actually destroy anything that wasn't available elsewhere from what I can tell. The FBI report says the duplicate archive was deleted between March 25, 2015 and March 31, 2015 and the preservation order from the FBI was July 31, 2015 so it occurred before the FBI order. I don't see reference to the House Benghazi Committee preservation order in that section of the FBI report. Even if it was under the House Committee retention, it doesn't look malicious. The FBI report notes quite a number of temporary e-mail files that were deleted and that during a retention order even temporary files should be preserved, but that no data was actually lost when the temporary files were deleted. This indicates more of ignorance on the part of the tech than criminal activity.
In part 4 of the report page 4, it seems like the conclusion reached was that Bleachbit was used to destroy temporary "vehicle".pst files, "but the e-mail content still existed."
As far as breaking the law, if you read up on 18USC1924 "Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material" you will find that even though the way the law is written for a layman doesn't sound like intent matters (although the word intent is used), existing case law like the supreme court case Gorin v. United States have established that intent is required to prosecute. The supreme court ruled that “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States” is required. Negligent handling of classified information is generally prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act and Clinton was not in the military.
You are on Slashdot. You should understand deleting one copy of data isn't actually deleting it when other copies exist. You are doing exactly what Trump, Fox News, and Brietbart did by using the term "deleted" when referring to one copy of the data to imply that data was lost. The first sentence was a misquote. I said "Nothing was really deleted" because other copies of the data existed; thus no crime. When handing over the business only data Hillary was very clear about what had been done and that she had a law office sort the data.
There is no cover-up or conspiracy here. Republicans managed to make one out of thin air. I do have to credit them with managing to convince so many Americans that a crime was committed when one wasn't.
He flirts and hits on 10-15 year old girls regularly (often enough that there are multiple tapes of him doing it). He liked walked in on underage teenage girls naked changing and bragged about being the only man allowed to do it on the Howard Stern show. He had his staff try to encourage the underage teenage girls that were naked to flirt with him saying they were more likely to win the contests if they did. He talked about wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.
There is zero evidence that Hillary broke any laws. None of the "classified information" in the e-mails was marked "classified" which is the big difference between those that are prosecuted and those that aren't. For unmarked information, you would have to prove that she was intentionally trying to leak classified information for it to be criminal. Should she have been more careful? Yes. Did she break the law? No.
Kellyanne Conway on the other hand broke the law on national television. President Pedophile is defending her for it. You don't see Republicans making a big deal about her breaking the law or any of the laws that President Pedophile has broken and been sued for. The media barely covered that he settled the fraud case against him. The media barely covered that he regularly hits on 10-13 year old girls and even discussed wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show or that he liked to walk in on teenage girls changing and bragged about it.
Still feeding the fake news and alternative facts I see. Sorry, you can't rewrite history. If you voted for President Pedophile, you voted for someone who lies and has no problem breaking the law, and if you did it because he made up a claim that his opponent broke the law all the worse. Kelly-Anne Conway just broke the law on Fox News last night by advertising for Ivanka Trump, but I don't see Republicans punishing her either. Most federal employees in the past get suspended or fired for what she did last night, but President Pedophile and Republican controlled congress are the only ones with the ability to punish her, and I don't see either doing anything. President Pedophile actually defended her after she broke the law.
The Clinton e-mails are one of the biggest lies Republicans, Breitbart, and Fox News told. Nothing was really deleted. Hillary first sent one copy of the hard drives to a law office and had them sort between all the personal stuff and professional stuff. They "deleted" the personal stuff off that copy of the data before handing it to the FBI. The FBI said that wasn't sufficient and issued a subpoena for all the data including the personal data. Then she handed a copy of all the data including the personal stuff. Once requested, the FBI got everything. The quote from the FBI was about "deleted" e-mails was that there were about a dozen business e-mails that hadn't been included with the first set of business e-mails handed over. There wasn't any crime, because nothing was actually deleted. The FBI also decided that the missing ("deleted") e-mails was not criminal because there was no evidence that it was done intentionally and there was nothing incriminating in them (incorrectly sorting 0.1% of the e-mails was probably accidental). It's not like we are talking about paper copies where there is only one copy of the papers and she shredded them. There were multiple copies of the data on different hard drives and backups.
Rice had her aides use personal e-mail accounts to send e-mails for her. Powell used a private e-mail account (believed to be AOL) for his secretary of state e-mails. Republicans only had a problem with Clinton doing the same thing Republicans had done. They also leave out that she requested a secure e-mail option from the NSA twice and was rejected; the NSA told her to send e-mails from her office computer when she spent most of her job traveling. She was just trying to do her job.
This study seems to be coming to a completely bogus non sequitur conclusion.
You could use any question that people would be less than honest about. It would be like asking people how often they masturbate and then finding that people who said they masturbated more often were more honest in general. Instead of saying that people who were honest about how often they masturbate are more honest in general, the "researchers" here would conclude that people who masturbate more often are more honest...
Any researchers that find Trump to be honest need their blood alcohol level examined during the research. A decent chunk of the country thought he was more honest than Clinton, but that is grading on quite the curve...
This seems to be another article trying to put Microsoft in a better light on privacy than reality.
1) What is the option for Diagnostics other than "Full"? If it is "Basic" or "Enhanced" that is still quite a lot of data sent to Microsoft (configuration data including the network which includes WiFi and network connections and IP addresses, software and hardware installed, and performance and reliability data including usage information). Even the "security" level that is available in Enterprise and Education includes data from the Malicious Software Removal Tool which can include confidential data.
I won't be happy with Windows 10 privacy until there is an "Off" option or "Ask before sending data" option and no data is sent without consent. If the Malicious Software Removal Tool asks before sending data and shows me what it is going to send so I can verify that it isn't confidential data before sending, that is fine. As long as I can just say "No" if I don't have time to verify it at the time also.
It looks like one can disable sample submission for Windows Defender (Settings > Update & security > Windows Defender > Sample submission), but not for the Malicious Software Removal Tool.
2) As stated above, why is it Web-based? Does it require a live account?
3) Is there a simple way to disable all of Cortana's data gathering? Cortana is a privacy disaster: https://privacy.microsoft.com/...
4) Are they updating the Windows 10 terms of service/privacy policy to specify that data is only sent with consent? They probably can't even do that with the current Diagnostic options. The terms of service for Windows 10 are a privacy nightmare compared to Windows 7.
Is it to much to ask for a simple option in privacy that limits information sent to Microsoft to license key verification? Microsoft would also get my public IP from Windows Update in their server logs. Anything more than that I want to have control over.
Better yet allow manufacturers to police their own products.
1) Allow Apple to take down any product listed with the words "official" and "Apple", "iPhone", "iPod", etc. Allow Apple to ban sellers of counterfeit Apple products (with the right of the seller to appeal). Have consequences (fees) if Apple incorrectly reports sellers so that it isn't like the DMCA with no consequences for false reporting.
2) Allow manufactures to specify a list of approved re-sellers on amazon.com. For products with a lot of counterfeits on Amazon currently, this might be the best solution.
3) Allow buyers to report counterfeit products. If enough buyers report a seller as trafficking counterfeit goods, the seller is banned. Require a field of proof in the report. Some of the counterfeit stuff I've bought off Amazon (I didn't know it was counterfeit when I bought it) were missing stickers and logos and such making it pretty obvious when you compared the real thing and the counterfeit. Sometimes the logos are wrong.
It's not like the counterfeit products are benefiting consumers. The ones I've gotten have been within 5% of the price from other retailers. There is no way a counterfeit product is worth 95% of the real deal. When I see a product on Amazon that's half it's normal price that's a pretty clear indicator that it is counterfeit, but when it's 95% of the price, there is no way to tell until it arrives if even then.
It would be complicated and a lot of work, but I don't see any other way to crack down on counterfeit products.
A lot of products I can't purchase on Amazon anymore because I am almost certain to get a counterfeit product. Amazon needs to address this issue. Lawsuits should be part of it, but it won't solve the problem. Lawsuits should only be part of the solution.
Was this summary written by the oil companies who want to get rid of the EPA or what? It is grossly misleading if you actually read the wired article.
The Hot Air (never heard of it) article is cherry picking the information they want to make the EPA look as bad as possible. Taking "CAFE dates back to 1975" and turning it into "The law requiring cars to meet these fuel efficiency tests was written in the 1970s" is grossly misleading when the statement is followed by " And by 2008, the standards were better; a 2013 Consumer Reports study tested more than 300 cars, and found 90 percent landed within two miles per gallon of their EPA-approved ratings."
90% of cars being within 2 mpg seems reasonable to me.
I understand there are some issues with the fleet-wide tests, but those aren't really what matter to consumers and they are still leading to improvement in the environment which is the goal. I am not worrying about acid rain today like I had to as a child. Fracking aside (which the EPA isn't allowed to regulate), water is mostly safe to drink compared to prior to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA is a very very good thing. I like having air that I can breath and water I can drink.
You've got to be kidding if you think switching on WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger give you more privacy. All it does is change who is doing the spying. Skype is Microsoft which seems to be cozy with the government. Facebook doesn't seem as cozy with the government in public, but I think that is probably all show anyways.
However, Facebook's apps are designed to be spyware, while Skype isn't last I checked. How is installing Spyware more private than non-spyware?
With Windows 10 and patches to earlier operating systems, Microsoft entered the spyware business big time. Maybe the Skype app is spyware now too, I haven't seen anything posted on that? Microsoft has always been cozy with the government like the daily scans for NSA provided keywords on all Microsoft OSes, but this move to being more like Facebook and Google has been more recent.
Skype's privacy policy: https://privacy.microsoft.com/... "However, we do not use what you say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files to target ads to you." Facebook messenger policy: https://www.facebook.com/polic... "We collect the content and other information you provide when you use our Services, including when you sign up for an account, create or share, and message or communicate with others." "We use the information we have to improve our advertising and measurement systems so we can show you relevant ads on and off our Services and measure the effectiveness and reach of ads and services."
So Skype = NSA spying. WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger = Facebook spying and almost certainly the NSA even though Facebook tries to imply otherwise.
What we need are more options like Signal Private Messenger that actually seem to care about privacy.
iMessage probably is one of the more privacy oriented messengers (with the exception of Signal). Apple hasn't seemed to be big on spyware other than the stint in Yosemite.
Could this be built into phone apps like Shazam? Shazam needs microphone access. That app seems built for collecting information for advertisers so it seems a likely candidate to me. There are lots of popular phone apps that request mic access even on iOS: Skype, Telegram, Dolphin Browser, Shazam, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. We need a way to tell which apps are doing this.
It also appears that even on iOS if you give an app microphone access then the app can access the microphone in the background: http://stackoverflow.com/quest...
Slashdot Mirror
DNS isn't encrypted. They can see your DNS lookups no matter what DNS server(s) you use.
No, unfortunately you are wrong and Nancy is correct. HIPAA only protects against covered entities selling your medical information. Covered entities are only health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses. A lot of people don't understand that Google and sites like WebMD collect everything you search for and sell that information even if it is medical information. WebMD in their privacy policy states that they "Send you relevant offers and informational materials on behalf of our sponsors pertaining to your health interests."
Your ISP has no issue selling your medical web searches or if you mention your medical condition in e-mails or other traffic they monitor. Mobile providers have in the past and may again in the future install spyware on cell phones that monitors any health data mentioned on your cell phone. The spyware may even watch you login to your health care provider and what you see. They aren't a covered entity so anything they can find out they can sell.
Selling social security numbers is legal in most states. There are a few states like Illinois that have passed laws requiring a company to get your consent before selling it. Even in those states there is nothing stopping the company from burying it in your mobile contract or a company having it in an EULA.
I am not a lawyer, but if a company sold your SSN and it was used to steal your identity, then they could likely be held liable. However, if your identity is stolen, determining the source of where the identity thief got the information could be quite difficult.
If you want a real life example, SAP currently works with mobile providers to sell customer data points to businesses when you walk in the door with its "Consumer Insight 365" product.
Basically, when your cell phone goes through the door the business is provided with information like:
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Your E-mail Address
Your Age
Your Gender
Your Household Income
What products you have recently been searching for
Your marital status
Your sexual orientation
Your religion
Your interests
How long you spent in the store
Where you came from (previous 10 locations)
And a whole ton more information. I haven't actually been able to find a complete list of what they provide. The above list is based on marketing slides for the product. The SAP data obviously comes from multiple sources, not just mobile providers.
Mobile providers are currently making an estimated $24 billion a year selling their part of the information. That is what they stood to lose if the FCC regulation had gone into effect.
A lot of ISPs and most mobile providers require you to provide your SSN to sign up so that they can run a credit check. Some provide the option of refusing if you leave a large deposit when signing up. Verizon for example, is a $400 deposit I believe if you refuse to provide SSN. Comcast I think is $250. YMMV.
That's exactly what they can sell.
During the debate Nancy Pelosi actually put up a sign with a few things this bill allows selling:
"Republicans want this information to be sold without your permission"
Financial information includes your name, address, SSN, and phone number. This will also be attached to your browsing history and other data. A lot of ISPs and mobile providers require SSN when you sign up, they claim so that they can run a credit check. Now, it's also so that they can sell it.
It also sounds like they can also sell the contents of voice calls and SMS too if they want.
Using encryption doesn't really protect you either.
1) It doesn't prevent metadata.
2) Some carriers plan on using spyware on your cell phones so that they even have access to encrypted data. This would also prevent VPNs from being of any use.
A Democrat (I forget who) before this was passed even read about Verizon's patent for a cable box with thermographic camera, microphone, and motion sensor. It includes a "cuddle detector" so that it can show ads for condoms when it detects people "cuddling" in front of the TV.
Microsoft applied for a patent for cable box and console technology that will detect how many people are in the room and allow copyright owners to block content if too many people are in the room. For example, if you buy a PPV fight and invite too many people over it will refuse to play.
Comcast applied for a patent for a cable box which detects who is in a room and personalizes ads based on the person or people in the room.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in AT&T v. FTC that the FTC has no authority over common carriers. This FCC rule that Republicans got rid of filled the gap from that court decision. After that court decision a bill was introduced to give the FTC that authority to reverse the court decision, but most Republicans voted against the bill and it failed.
So Republicans argument is:
FCC shouldn't regulate privacy because that is the FTC's job.
FTC shouldn't regulate common carriers because that is the FCC's job.
So who regulates common carrier's privacy? Now, it's no one.
In addition, congress only gave the FTC the authority to pass actual regulations if there "unfair or deceptive acts" and they can prove the regulation prevents harm. Some Republicans argue there is no harm from companies spying on you because you save money or get services for free. Some also argue that seeing ads tailored to you is in your benefit.
This bill wasn't about doing what was right though. It was all about money. ISPs and mobile providers stand to make a lot of money by invading our privacy. They had no problem paying off politicians to pass this bill:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3...
The supreme court did uphold the conviction as they found they had acted in bad faith and for the advantage of a foreign government. The supreme court established the guidelines on what was required and said that in the Gorin case those requirements were met.
Gorin claimed "the innocuous character of the evidence forbade a conclusion that petitioners had intent or reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation." The supreme court found that the "reports, in short, are a part of this nation's plan for armed defense." The supreme court ruled that they weren't innocuous and could be used to the advantage of the foreign nation (Russia) to which they were provided. Therefore, the second part of the condition I quoted above held and the intent argument was invalid.
Yes, Republicans used their only African-American senator, Time Scott, to speak for Jeff Sessions. No big surprise that he is supporting his party.
Saying that Corretta Scott King was thanking Jeff Sessions for the Rosa Parks Library is rather misleading. She was just acknowledging his presence. There was no thank you in the speech to Jeff Sessions. He was just acknowledged as being there along with all the other notable people in attendance. She was given a list of names to read for the opening of the library; his name was on the list. If you actually watch the video she has to pause and force herself to even read the name and she does not look happy about it.
Jeff Sessions was not liked by Coretta Scott King, you can read her letter for yourself:
https://www.documentcloud.org/...
Sean Spicer said “I can only hope that if she was still with us today, that after getting to know him and to see his record and his commitment to voting and civil rights, that she would” regret her opposition. In some right wing news this is being used as a claim that if Coretta Scott King were alive today she would support Jeff Sessions; that is another alternative fact being put out by the right.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Jeff Sessions has a 20% voting record on civil-rights according to the ACLU, which are some of the major issues it is now his job to protect. He has a 7% voting record for African-American issues according to the NAACP. Jeff Sessions has called the NAACP, the ACLU, and other civil rights groups "un-American."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dom...
Jeff Sessions allegedly told a black attorney that the Ku Klux Klan was "OK until I found out they smoked pot." Sessions used to call a black assistant U.S. attorney that worked for him, Thomas Figures, "boy." When asked about the comment "Sessions apologized and said the remark was a joke." Personally, I don't accept the excuse every time a politician is caught making a racist statement that they were just making a joke and telling an African-American that you think the KKK is OK isn't very funny.
Jeff Sessions believes government services should only be available in English even though the US has no official language.
Jeff Sessions refused to support the removal of a racist judge who said black people "don't want to work" and that affirmative action is repugnant. Sessions said that the judge was "insensitive at worst."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
http://fortune.com/2016/11/19/...
pedophile:
Oxford English Dictionary (online): A person who is sexually attracted to children.
Merriam-Webster: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. (second definition is pre-pubescent).
Urban Dictionary: A person who suffers from Pedophilia; that is, an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
WordNet: An adult who is sexually attracted to children.
Macmillian: An adult who is sexually attracted to children.
Dictionary.com: An adult who is sexually attracted to young children.
Maybe at one point it was specific to pre-pubescent, but that is not how it is generally used today. Dictionary.com is the only one I checked that even includes "young".
child:
Oxford: A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority:
Meriam-Webster: c : a person not yet of age
Macmillian: a young person from the time they are born until they are about 14 years old.
Dictionary.com: a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:
Maybe you should actually try looking it up in the dictionary before trying to correct me? Yes, a few dictionaries could back up your interpretation, but the majority don't.
If you think it is OK for 60+ year old men to sleep with or event flirt with 10-13 year old girls, then I think you are sick. I think the age of consent could be more lax in the case of 19-20 year-olds with 16-17 year-olds, but I don't think that's what you are talking about.
Even if you go by your definition of puberty, it still probably applies to the 10-year-old(s?) he has hit on.
I didn't have any falsehoods about deleting e-mails. It's all based on the media intentionally or misunderstanding IT. The FBI report is pretty clear that they had access to all e-mails. The deletions were temporary and duplicate copies. I go into detail in some of my other posts.
Clinton may have violated her non-disclosure agreement, but the worst penalty in the NDA she signed was that she could be to be terminated from the job or losing access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI); neither of which she had anyways by the time the FBI investigated.
As I stated in another post, intent does matter for 18 793 (f) according to the supreme court in Gorin v. United States. You can't just read a law as a layman and interpret it. You have to look at precedent too. The supreme court ruled that prosecution requires "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Comey was correct that she could not be prosecuted because there was no intent.
https://supreme.justia.com/cas...
Boy do you have your facts mixed up.
Bleachbit according to the FBI report was used to delete temporary .pst files that were used as "vehicles" to move files between mail servers and the administrative server and also to delete a duplicate copy of an old e-mail archive. It was also used to delete one copy of the data sent to a law office after the e-mails had been sorted.
The post on Reddit wasn't about purging correspondence it was about how to search and replace Clinton's e-mail address with a placeholder so that her e-mail address wouldn't become public record. The IT company (PRN?) apparently didn't trust the FBI redaction not to miss one. It wasn't anything malicious like the news articles implied.
They didn't keep finding more missing e-mails. They took a long time to go through the e-mails they already had. They kept finding e-mails in what they already had that were relevant to the investigation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
When they got a hold of the Wiener/Abedin e-mails the reason they were able to go through them so quickly is that they already had all the Clinton e-mails, they just had to go through the ones that were about Clinton that weren't addressed to her.
As I stated, she deleted her personal e-mails before handing them over to the FBI. They said that wasn't sufficient so she handed over a copy with all the current data (both personal and business) along with physical and cloud backups. There were numerous news articles about "14,900" or "15,000" missing e-mails that the "FBI found" when Clinton handed over the full copy of personal and business data, but it turned out only a dozen of those e-mails were actually business, the rest were personal. The FBI didn't really "find" them when they were handed to them and they weren't really "missing" when personal e-mails were intentionally left out of the initial copy sent to the FBI.
The whole issue with "deleted" e-mails was based on the news media not understanding the concept of data being stored in multiple locations and misunderstanding the FBI report investigation into the deletion of every temporary file in the audit logs. It's pretty clear some of the right wing media was trying to be deliberately misleading and some mainstream media fed into it too probably for the clicks.
Also for the House Benghazi Committee preservation order to apply instead of the FBI preservation order, I believe that .pst file would have had to contain Benghazi e-mails and there is no indication that it did. The CNN article you linked makes that assumption, but I don't know what evidence they base that on.
For example, this article states that the preservation order was only for Benghazi e-mails:
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
Again, you and the article make it sound like something was actually deleted. First of all, even in the article it says the tech wasn't asked to delete anything by Clinton, so even if he did it wouldn't be her crime. That said, from the actual FBI report it doesn't sound like he did anything wrong. The report just documents every time e-mail was deleted in the audit logs including temporary and duplicate copies of data.
The quotes in the article are reworded and rearranged from the actual FBI report. I don't know why they don't match exactly. It is also combining different parts of the report to create a different impression. The actual text referenced about the archive deletion is on page 25 of part 3 of the FBI report and other parts of the quotes are from page 103. The actual FBI report just says "However, [] believed he had an "oh shit" moment and removed the HRC Archive mailbox. He also changed the mailbox retention policy from 30 days to 1 day, and cleaned the mailbox database because MILLS previously requested in late 2014 or early 2015 he change the retention policy for CLINTON and ABEDIN's existing and outgoing email to 60 days. He removed the HRC Archive mailbox manually because all content in the mailbox was older than 60 days." Although if you read the surrounding text you learn that the HRC Archive mailbox was a duplicate copy of old e-mails and they were retained elsewhere. I really don't have an explanation what the tech was doing other than trying to make it seem like the server was configured the way it had supposed to be (maybe to cover himself not having configured it the way he had been asked?). He didn't actually destroy anything that wasn't available elsewhere from what I can tell. The FBI report says the duplicate archive was deleted between March 25, 2015 and March 31, 2015 and the preservation order from the FBI was July 31, 2015 so it occurred before the FBI order. I don't see reference to the House Benghazi Committee preservation order in that section of the FBI report. Even if it was under the House Committee retention, it doesn't look malicious. The FBI report notes quite a number of temporary e-mail files that were deleted and that during a retention order even temporary files should be preserved, but that no data was actually lost when the temporary files were deleted. This indicates more of ignorance on the part of the tech than criminal activity.
In part 4 of the report page 4, it seems like the conclusion reached was that Bleachbit was used to destroy temporary "vehicle" .pst files, "but the e-mail content still existed."
As far as breaking the law, if you read up on 18USC1924 "Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material" you will find that even though the way the law is written for a layman doesn't sound like intent matters (although the word intent is used), existing case law like the supreme court case Gorin v. United States have established that intent is required to prosecute. The supreme court ruled that “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States” is required. Negligent handling of classified information is generally prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act and Clinton was not in the military.
https://warontherocks.com/2016...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...
You are on Slashdot. You should understand deleting one copy of data isn't actually deleting it when other copies exist. You are doing exactly what Trump, Fox News, and Brietbart did by using the term "deleted" when referring to one copy of the data to imply that data was lost. The first sentence was a misquote. I said "Nothing was really deleted" because other copies of the data existed; thus no crime. When handing over the business only data Hillary was very clear about what had been done and that she had a law office sort the data.
There is no cover-up or conspiracy here. Republicans managed to make one out of thin air. I do have to credit them with managing to convince so many Americans that a crime was committed when one wasn't.
He flirts and hits on 10-15 year old girls regularly (often enough that there are multiple tapes of him doing it). He liked walked in on underage teenage girls naked changing and bragged about being the only man allowed to do it on the Howard Stern show. He had his staff try to encourage the underage teenage girls that were naked to flirt with him saying they were more likely to win the contests if they did. He talked about wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
http://www.politifact.com/wisc...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://people.com/politics/don...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mo...
http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/...
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...
She didn't delete any e-mails. That's a Trump alternative fact. I already posted once in this thread about it:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
There is zero evidence that Hillary broke any laws. None of the "classified information" in the e-mails was marked "classified" which is the big difference between those that are prosecuted and those that aren't. For unmarked information, you would have to prove that she was intentionally trying to leak classified information for it to be criminal. Should she have been more careful? Yes. Did she break the law? No.
Kellyanne Conway on the other hand broke the law on national television. President Pedophile is defending her for it. You don't see Republicans making a big deal about her breaking the law or any of the laws that President Pedophile has broken and been sued for. The media barely covered that he settled the fraud case against him. The media barely covered that he regularly hits on 10-13 year old girls and even discussed wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show or that he liked to walk in on teenage girls changing and bragged about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
I have very little respect for people who vote for a pedophile for president.
Still feeding the fake news and alternative facts I see. Sorry, you can't rewrite history. If you voted for President Pedophile, you voted for someone who lies and has no problem breaking the law, and if you did it because he made up a claim that his opponent broke the law all the worse. Kelly-Anne Conway just broke the law on Fox News last night by advertising for Ivanka Trump, but I don't see Republicans punishing her either. Most federal employees in the past get suspended or fired for what she did last night, but President Pedophile and Republican controlled congress are the only ones with the ability to punish her, and I don't see either doing anything. President Pedophile actually defended her after she broke the law.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...
https://www.bloomberg.com/poli...
The Clinton e-mails are one of the biggest lies Republicans, Breitbart, and Fox News told. Nothing was really deleted. Hillary first sent one copy of the hard drives to a law office and had them sort between all the personal stuff and professional stuff. They "deleted" the personal stuff off that copy of the data before handing it to the FBI. The FBI said that wasn't sufficient and issued a subpoena for all the data including the personal data. Then she handed a copy of all the data including the personal stuff. Once requested, the FBI got everything. The quote from the FBI was about "deleted" e-mails was that there were about a dozen business e-mails that hadn't been included with the first set of business e-mails handed over. There wasn't any crime, because nothing was actually deleted. The FBI also decided that the missing ("deleted") e-mails was not criminal because there was no evidence that it was done intentionally and there was nothing incriminating in them (incorrectly sorting 0.1% of the e-mails was probably accidental). It's not like we are talking about paper copies where there is only one copy of the papers and she shredded them. There were multiple copies of the data on different hard drives and backups.
Rice had her aides use personal e-mail accounts to send e-mails for her. Powell used a private e-mail account (believed to be AOL) for his secretary of state e-mails. Republicans only had a problem with Clinton doing the same thing Republicans had done. They also leave out that she requested a secure e-mail option from the NSA twice and was rejected; the NSA told her to send e-mails from her office computer when she spent most of her job traveling. She was just trying to do her job.
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...
This study seems to be coming to a completely bogus non sequitur conclusion.
You could use any question that people would be less than honest about. It would be like asking people how often they masturbate and then finding that people who said they masturbated more often were more honest in general. Instead of saying that people who were honest about how often they masturbate are more honest in general, the "researchers" here would conclude that people who masturbate more often are more honest...
Any researchers that find Trump to be honest need their blood alcohol level examined during the research. A decent chunk of the country thought he was more honest than Clinton, but that is grading on quite the curve...
This seems to be another article trying to put Microsoft in a better light on privacy than reality.
1) What is the option for Diagnostics other than "Full"? If it is "Basic" or "Enhanced" that is still quite a lot of data sent to Microsoft (configuration data including the network which includes WiFi and network connections and IP addresses, software and hardware installed, and performance and reliability data including usage information). Even the "security" level that is available in Enterprise and Education includes data from the Malicious Software Removal Tool which can include confidential data.
I won't be happy with Windows 10 privacy until there is an "Off" option or "Ask before sending data" option and no data is sent without consent. If the Malicious Software Removal Tool asks before sending data and shows me what it is going to send so I can verify that it isn't confidential data before sending, that is fine. As long as I can just say "No" if I don't have time to verify it at the time also.
It looks like one can disable sample submission for Windows Defender (Settings > Update & security > Windows Defender > Sample submission), but not for the Malicious Software Removal Tool.
2) As stated above, why is it Web-based? Does it require a live account?
3) Is there a simple way to disable all of Cortana's data gathering? Cortana is a privacy disaster:
https://privacy.microsoft.com/...
4) Are they updating the Windows 10 terms of service/privacy policy to specify that data is only sent with consent? They probably can't even do that with the current Diagnostic options. The terms of service for Windows 10 are a privacy nightmare compared to Windows 7.
Is it to much to ask for a simple option in privacy that limits information sent to Microsoft to license key verification? Microsoft would also get my public IP from Windows Update in their server logs. Anything more than that I want to have control over.
Better yet allow manufacturers to police their own products.
1) Allow Apple to take down any product listed with the words "official" and "Apple", "iPhone", "iPod", etc. Allow Apple to ban sellers of counterfeit Apple products (with the right of the seller to appeal). Have consequences (fees) if Apple incorrectly reports sellers so that it isn't like the DMCA with no consequences for false reporting.
2) Allow manufactures to specify a list of approved re-sellers on amazon.com. For products with a lot of counterfeits on Amazon currently, this might be the best solution.
3) Allow buyers to report counterfeit products. If enough buyers report a seller as trafficking counterfeit goods, the seller is banned. Require a field of proof in the report. Some of the counterfeit stuff I've bought off Amazon (I didn't know it was counterfeit when I bought it) were missing stickers and logos and such making it pretty obvious when you compared the real thing and the counterfeit. Sometimes the logos are wrong.
It's not like the counterfeit products are benefiting consumers. The ones I've gotten have been within 5% of the price from other retailers. There is no way a counterfeit product is worth 95% of the real deal. When I see a product on Amazon that's half it's normal price that's a pretty clear indicator that it is counterfeit, but when it's 95% of the price, there is no way to tell until it arrives if even then.
It would be complicated and a lot of work, but I don't see any other way to crack down on counterfeit products.
A lot of products I can't purchase on Amazon anymore because I am almost certain to get a counterfeit product. Amazon needs to address this issue. Lawsuits should be part of it, but it won't solve the problem. Lawsuits should only be part of the solution.
Having secure transport doesn't help if the client end is spyware.
Was this summary written by the oil companies who want to get rid of the EPA or what? It is grossly misleading if you actually read the wired article.
The Hot Air (never heard of it) article is cherry picking the information they want to make the EPA look as bad as possible. Taking "CAFE dates back to 1975" and turning it into "The law requiring cars to meet these fuel efficiency tests was written in the 1970s" is grossly misleading when the statement is followed by " And by 2008, the standards were better; a 2013 Consumer Reports study tested more than 300 cars, and found 90 percent landed within two miles per gallon of their EPA-approved ratings."
90% of cars being within 2 mpg seems reasonable to me.
I understand there are some issues with the fleet-wide tests, but those aren't really what matter to consumers and they are still leading to improvement in the environment which is the goal. I am not worrying about acid rain today like I had to as a child. Fracking aside (which the EPA isn't allowed to regulate), water is mostly safe to drink compared to prior to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA is a very very good thing. I like having air that I can breath and water I can drink.
Slashdot editor FAIL.
You've got to be kidding if you think switching on WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger give you more privacy. All it does is change who is doing the spying. Skype is Microsoft which seems to be cozy with the government. Facebook doesn't seem as cozy with the government in public, but I think that is probably all show anyways.
However, Facebook's apps are designed to be spyware, while Skype isn't last I checked. How is installing Spyware more private than non-spyware?
With Windows 10 and patches to earlier operating systems, Microsoft entered the spyware business big time. Maybe the Skype app is spyware now too, I haven't seen anything posted on that? Microsoft has always been cozy with the government like the daily scans for NSA provided keywords on all Microsoft OSes, but this move to being more like Facebook and Google has been more recent.
Skype's privacy policy:
https://privacy.microsoft.com/...
"However, we do not use what you say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files to target ads to you."
Facebook messenger policy:
https://www.facebook.com/polic...
"We collect the content and other information you provide when you use our Services, including when you sign up for an account, create or share, and message or communicate with others."
"We use the information we have to improve our advertising and measurement systems so we can show you relevant ads on and off our Services and measure the effectiveness and reach of ads and services."
So Skype = NSA spying.
WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger = Facebook spying and almost certainly the NSA even though Facebook tries to imply otherwise.
What we need are more options like Signal Private Messenger that actually seem to care about privacy.
iMessage probably is one of the more privacy oriented messengers (with the exception of Signal). Apple hasn't seemed to be big on spyware other than the stint in Yosemite.
Could this be built into phone apps like Shazam? Shazam needs microphone access. That app seems built for collecting information for advertisers so it seems a likely candidate to me. There are lots of popular phone apps that request mic access even on iOS: Skype, Telegram, Dolphin Browser, Shazam, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. We need a way to tell which apps are doing this.
It also appears that even on iOS if you give an app microphone access then the app can access the microphone in the background:
http://stackoverflow.com/quest...