Leaking the info to reporters is not one of those procedures.
And you really think the government will act on complaints? It has such a wonderful (not) track record of doing so thus far. Make a complaint, I guarantee it'll be ignored. The only way to get anything changed these days is to let everyone know about the abuses. They'll only scramble to fix problems when they think they might lose votes and/or donations.
This crap was "insightful"? More like "overrated".
Ah, so I'm an idiot for standing up for the atrocity that is our government, and pointing out that the government is not above the law, much as hacks like you want to think?
Enjoy your facist state. People like me will keep on fighting to make America great again. Why do you hate America? Seriously. This is not the America I grew up in and learned to appreciate. This is intolerable and people like you are destroying what used to make this nation great.
Goodbye. Now that I see that you're just a mouthpiece for the jack-booted thugs, I'm not wasting my time here anymore.
I think the point being made was that this isn't a bug; it's there by design. A bug is a coding mistake that needs to be rectified. This isn't a coding mistake; it's a design choice that can be changed if you, the user, don't want the behavior. It's like saying "the fonts are too big, it must be a bug." It's not; it just requires you to change a configuration option.
What is desired behavior for some isn't for others. Just change the setting, and be on your way. That's what I did when I slightly changed font settings to look the way I like them. I didn't go calling the "drives me nuts" font choices that were pre-installed a "bug".
Are you sure your dealer isn't installing cheap parts to pocket the difference between what you paid for a genuine alternator and what they actually paid for the cheap one? It's hard to check the validity of a part after it's already buried inside the car and you aren't given the packaging or any proof-of-authenticity documents.
VW owners: don't order from worldimpex.com. They have in the past shipped me cheap imitation parts that didn't even have the proper texture of the genuine parts, let alone the VW/Audi/SEAT/Skoda logos. I will never buy from them again.
The government can have and own anything a company or individual wants to give them.
All right, you want to be insulting? Fine, you fail reading comprehension.
The law bars the government from asking for this data because of legislation passed in 1996.
So, let's pull out the law, and see the point you are so conveniently glossing over by insulting me by accusing me of not reading, when you are not reading what I am saying:
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
See that? The carriers have a duty to protect customers' privacy. That means that the correct answer is "no, you may not have that data, because we are bound to protect our customers' privacy, and you do not have a warrant, so go to your rooms with no supper."
The law also says:
A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts.
Which means that the information can only be used for providing services. Government oversight is not required to provide communications services. Again means the info can't be given over.
A telecommunications carrier shall disclose customer proprietary network information, upon affirmative written request by the customer, to any person designated by the customer.
Where did they get affirmative written requests from the customers to disclose the data? They didn't.
And what do they mean by the proprietary info, etc?
nformation that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship
Bingo. Who is calling who falls under quantity, destination, and amount of use. This says nothing about the content of the calls. It doesn't have to. The info is still covered.
It's not my fault that you can't be bothered to actually do the research and instead pick on someone who disagrees with you who doesn't need to use all of your argument to discredit you -- just enough of it to show you're full of it.
Or did you ever consider the possibility that you tend to notice the phone ringing when you're in the shower vs. when you're not -- e.g. when you have more of a reason to notice something when you're looking for it?
And you just randomly assumed something about someone just because of their race and/or appearance. Way to go. That's racism.
30, but I see this as a "hey someone finally realized we have documents for just this purpose, why aren't we using them?" effect. It doesn't strike me as a big deal. It'd be different if there wasn't already a system for international travel, but hey, wow, expected to have a passport to cross a border? Imagine that!
It's kind of like the new Missouri law that says you have to have a photo ID to vote, and people are bitching about it. Duh! Isn't the whole point of having a government-issued photo ID to prove you are who you say you are? People are complaining that this will disenfranchise people. How, exactly? They claim it will hit the elderly because lots of them can't drive. Uh -- my grandmother had a card that looked like a drivers license but was actually stamped specifically as "not a driver's license -- for ID purposes only" -- seems like the complainers haven't bothered to do their research, as my Grandma never learned to drive and never did take the wheel through the day she died.
Seems like people will gripe even when expected to use things designed for the specific purpose they're being asked to use them for!
Why not get a passport? Solves the problem, given that's exactly what the purpose of a passport is. A driver's license is for proof that you are licensed to drive, or for "government-issued photo ID" purposes within the US borders. When I renewed my passport some years ago, it only took a few weeks to come in, or you can get expedited service if you're in a hurry.
The big controversy up here in Canada right now is that everybody is going to need a passport to go across the border by next year.
I don't see what the big deal is. Isn't that what a passport is for? That you present it when entering another country? I've always presented my passport (I'm a US citizen, if that matters or not, not sure; probably does given different visa/entry requirements for different countries depending on visitors' citizenships) when crossing a national border. Even when I went to Canada.
I find it kind of amusing that people are grumbling about having to use a document that is intended precisely for the purpose of doing what it is going to be required for! Kind of like freaking out that now you need to actually have a driver's license to drive.
Or am I missing something? I don't know much about the specifics of the controversy.
Did you stop reading where you stopped quoting? These companies were not forced.
How do you know that? Regardless of whether they were threatened or not, they still turned the data over without a warrant, as we know from what Qwest has said, and the government is not allowed by law (according to the telecommunications privacy act of 96) to have the data without a warrant.
In case you hadn't guessed, that means that yes, I'm right and others who are angry about this are also right. The government cannot be in possession of this data legally.
Does it matter whether records are property? Not really. What matters is whether or not this seizure is legal or not, and it isn't. But, just to toss in another thought, records can be treated as property. Try hacking into Microsoft and stealing the source code for Windows and see if you don't get charged with theft -- which requires that something be able to be stolen, which requires that someone own it.
As for phone companies turning over my records without a court order -- I know that they're not allowed to do that because I know someone who used to do that exact kind of work, and he told me that when police called asking for records (or faxed, often) the requests were turned down unless a legal search warrant was presented. Try again.
I find that a rather crazy attitude considering we don't even know who's going to run yet! Wait til someone is chosen, and then gripe. Til then, who knows? There might be some good choices.
Please show the definitive, sworn, publicly-available, and accurate evidence that states that the government may violate the rights of those whom it is sworn to protect. Cite sources and provide links or other information regarding where the information can be found.
Please justify the illegal warrantless seizure of the information that has taken place when there is this thing called a legal system that is designed to process these things called warrants that allow law enforcement to view data in order to further an investigation.
Please explain why the existing court system (e.g. FISA) that exists for exactly this purpose should not be used when the purpose of this system is to protect the rights of those whom the government governs -- those who put the government in power.
And finally, please explain to all of us why the government should not be forced to explain its current and past abuses of those it serves.
As for trespassers -- in many states you do in fact have the right to shoot them, especially if you do so in self defense and fear that you will be harmed if you do nothing. This is coded into law. Warrantless seizure of records and spying within national borders is not.
This is where I get lost in this whole thing. That "data" isn't the citizen's property. It's the property of the phone companies.
And the government charged in and demanded this, without having any valid reason to do so, not one that matters (read: warrants). It's like my demanding your car keys and then you're the one who gets in trouble with the law when you refuse to hand over the keys to your own car.
Didn't force them? Right. And people voluntarily hand over their property to others who have no standing to demand or possess it. That's what thieves do. So I guess that means the government is a bunch of thieves -- but does that really surprise you?
Part of the problem is that our history teaches us constently about how perfect our government is (and was)
While your point is valid, the specifics of this isn't. When I took history courses, they covered (for example) past illegal activities of the FBI under Hoover, including domestic spying which the FBI is strictly forbidden to undertake, and spying on citizens. They also covered McCarthyism and the communist scare, the 60s equivalent to terrorism today.
We learn the lessons. We just don't learn FROM them.
You're asking moral questions, which mean absolutely nothing since none of us (assuming) are Congressman.
It means absolutely everything, since morality is so closely entwined with right and wrong, and our laws are just the codification of that.
And as for the legality of it -- no, it's not, not without a warrant. The whole point of warrants is to ensure oversight and that abuse doesn't happen. Whether or not it's actual call data, they don't have permission to have this data.
Even if the government had a recording of every overseas call I ever made, along with complete biographies of everybody I talked to, AND a list of my favorite internet pr0n sites, they'd still have less information about me than amazon.com already does.
You voluntarily turn your data over to Amazon. You don't voluntarily turn it over to the government, which is barred from having the data in the first place without a warrant.
"Get over it"? That's the exact attitude that has led to illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong abuses like this! And it's disgusting.
Please reference the court case you're referring to.
Uh, it already is referenced in the comment that all of these comments are replies to.
Funny thing is, one of the comments is yelling at someone for refusing to read... well, I did, and the link is there. It would take less time to move the cursor to the scroll bar, press the button, move the scroll bar up slightly, see the link, and click on it than it would to post and then wait for someone to do what I have, and tell you where the link is that you would have noticed... if you had read the thread.
Mod this fucking bullshit down. What exactly does this add to the discussion? Oh, right, you want to make someone else look like a fool. Who's the one who looks like a fool, the one who thinks about an argument and then writes it down, or the one who just screams "MORON!!!!OMG!!!!" without an explanation of why, or a counterargument?
Slashdot Mirror
Leaking the info to reporters is not one of those procedures.
And you really think the government will act on complaints? It has such a wonderful (not) track record of doing so thus far. Make a complaint, I guarantee it'll be ignored. The only way to get anything changed these days is to let everyone know about the abuses. They'll only scramble to fix problems when they think they might lose votes and/or donations.
This crap was "insightful"? More like "overrated".
Ah, so I'm an idiot for standing up for the atrocity that is our government, and pointing out that the government is not above the law, much as hacks like you want to think?
Enjoy your facist state. People like me will keep on fighting to make America great again. Why do you hate America? Seriously. This is not the America I grew up in and learned to appreciate. This is intolerable and people like you are destroying what used to make this nation great.
Goodbye. Now that I see that you're just a mouthpiece for the jack-booted thugs, I'm not wasting my time here anymore.
And after a week, some people have lots of different tabs and stuff open, making it annoying to restart Firefox.
:: Mozilla Add-ons :: Add Features to Mozilla Software
Then may I recommend an extension that will make your life much easier in this case and when the browser crashes?
Session Manager
I think the point being made was that this isn't a bug; it's there by design. A bug is a coding mistake that needs to be rectified. This isn't a coding mistake; it's a design choice that can be changed if you, the user, don't want the behavior. It's like saying "the fonts are too big, it must be a bug." It's not; it just requires you to change a configuration option.
What is desired behavior for some isn't for others. Just change the setting, and be on your way. That's what I did when I slightly changed font settings to look the way I like them. I didn't go calling the "drives me nuts" font choices that were pre-installed a "bug".
Shut off those fucking sirens, Mr. Worf. I can't hear myself think in here with all that damn noise.
Yep, there's a database of Enron emails:
Enron Email Dataset
I only buy alternators from reputable dealers
Are you sure your dealer isn't installing cheap parts to pocket the difference between what you paid for a genuine alternator and what they actually paid for the cheap one? It's hard to check the validity of a part after it's already buried inside the car and you aren't given the packaging or any proof-of-authenticity documents.
VW owners: don't order from worldimpex.com. They have in the past shipped me cheap imitation parts that didn't even have the proper texture of the genuine parts, let alone the VW/Audi/SEAT/Skoda logos. I will never buy from them again.
The government can have and own anything a company or individual wants to give them.
All right, you want to be insulting? Fine, you fail reading comprehension.
The law bars the government from asking for this data because of legislation passed in 1996.
So, let's pull out the law, and see the point you are so conveniently glossing over by insulting me by accusing me of not reading, when you are not reading what I am saying:
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
See that? The carriers have a duty to protect customers' privacy. That means that the correct answer is "no, you may not have that data, because we are bound to protect our customers' privacy, and you do not have a warrant, so go to your rooms with no supper."
The law also says:
A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts.
Which means that the information can only be used for providing services. Government oversight is not required to provide communications services. Again means the info can't be given over.
A telecommunications carrier shall disclose customer proprietary network information, upon affirmative written request by the customer, to any person designated by the customer.
Where did they get affirmative written requests from the customers to disclose the data? They didn't.
And what do they mean by the proprietary info, etc?
nformation that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship
Bingo. Who is calling who falls under quantity, destination, and amount of use. This says nothing about the content of the calls. It doesn't have to. The info is still covered.
It's not my fault that you can't be bothered to actually do the research and instead pick on someone who disagrees with you who doesn't need to use all of your argument to discredit you -- just enough of it to show you're full of it.
Or did you ever consider the possibility that you tend to notice the phone ringing when you're in the shower vs. when you're not -- e.g. when you have more of a reason to notice something when you're looking for it?
And you just randomly assumed something about someone just because of their race and/or appearance. Way to go. That's racism.
But that's what the law requires. They can't even be bothered to follow the law. That's despicable. No one is above the law. Ever.
30, but I see this as a "hey someone finally realized we have documents for just this purpose, why aren't we using them?" effect. It doesn't strike me as a big deal. It'd be different if there wasn't already a system for international travel, but hey, wow, expected to have a passport to cross a border? Imagine that!
It's kind of like the new Missouri law that says you have to have a photo ID to vote, and people are bitching about it. Duh! Isn't the whole point of having a government-issued photo ID to prove you are who you say you are? People are complaining that this will disenfranchise people. How, exactly? They claim it will hit the elderly because lots of them can't drive. Uh -- my grandmother had a card that looked like a drivers license but was actually stamped specifically as "not a driver's license -- for ID purposes only" -- seems like the complainers haven't bothered to do their research, as my Grandma never learned to drive and never did take the wheel through the day she died.
Seems like people will gripe even when expected to use things designed for the specific purpose they're being asked to use them for!
In hindsite, he did lots of great things, but also, lots of dumb things too.
... he was a politician!?!? Oh noes!!!
You mean
Why not get a passport? Solves the problem, given that's exactly what the purpose of a passport is. A driver's license is for proof that you are licensed to drive, or for "government-issued photo ID" purposes within the US borders. When I renewed my passport some years ago, it only took a few weeks to come in, or you can get expedited service if you're in a hurry.
The big controversy up here in Canada right now is that everybody is going to need a passport to go across the border by next year.
I don't see what the big deal is. Isn't that what a passport is for? That you present it when entering another country? I've always presented my passport (I'm a US citizen, if that matters or not, not sure; probably does given different visa/entry requirements for different countries depending on visitors' citizenships) when crossing a national border. Even when I went to Canada.
I find it kind of amusing that people are grumbling about having to use a document that is intended precisely for the purpose of doing what it is going to be required for! Kind of like freaking out that now you need to actually have a driver's license to drive.
Or am I missing something? I don't know much about the specifics of the controversy.
Actually, I wasn't involved in the argument. :p
Did you stop reading where you stopped quoting? These companies were not forced.
How do you know that? Regardless of whether they were threatened or not, they still turned the data over without a warrant, as we know from what Qwest has said, and the government is not allowed by law (according to the telecommunications privacy act of 96) to have the data without a warrant.
In case you hadn't guessed, that means that yes, I'm right and others who are angry about this are also right. The government cannot be in possession of this data legally.
Does it matter whether records are property? Not really. What matters is whether or not this seizure is legal or not, and it isn't. But, just to toss in another thought, records can be treated as property. Try hacking into Microsoft and stealing the source code for Windows and see if you don't get charged with theft -- which requires that something be able to be stolen, which requires that someone own it.
As for phone companies turning over my records without a court order -- I know that they're not allowed to do that because I know someone who used to do that exact kind of work, and he told me that when police called asking for records (or faxed, often) the requests were turned down unless a legal search warrant was presented. Try again.
I find that a rather crazy attitude considering we don't even know who's going to run yet! Wait til someone is chosen, and then gripe. Til then, who knows? There might be some good choices.
Please show the definitive, sworn, publicly-available, and accurate evidence that states that the government may violate the rights of those whom it is sworn to protect. Cite sources and provide links or other information regarding where the information can be found.
Please justify the illegal warrantless seizure of the information that has taken place when there is this thing called a legal system that is designed to process these things called warrants that allow law enforcement to view data in order to further an investigation.
Please explain why the existing court system (e.g. FISA) that exists for exactly this purpose should not be used when the purpose of this system is to protect the rights of those whom the government governs -- those who put the government in power.
And finally, please explain to all of us why the government should not be forced to explain its current and past abuses of those it serves.
As for trespassers -- in many states you do in fact have the right to shoot them, especially if you do so in self defense and fear that you will be harmed if you do nothing. This is coded into law. Warrantless seizure of records and spying within national borders is not.
This is where I get lost in this whole thing. That "data" isn't the citizen's property. It's the property of the phone companies.
And the government charged in and demanded this, without having any valid reason to do so, not one that matters (read: warrants). It's like my demanding your car keys and then you're the one who gets in trouble with the law when you refuse to hand over the keys to your own car.
Didn't force them? Right. And people voluntarily hand over their property to others who have no standing to demand or possess it. That's what thieves do. So I guess that means the government is a bunch of thieves -- but does that really surprise you?
Part of the problem is that our history teaches us constently about how perfect our government is (and was)
While your point is valid, the specifics of this isn't. When I took history courses, they covered (for example) past illegal activities of the FBI under Hoover, including domestic spying which the FBI is strictly forbidden to undertake, and spying on citizens. They also covered McCarthyism and the communist scare, the 60s equivalent to terrorism today.
We learn the lessons. We just don't learn FROM them.
You're asking moral questions, which mean absolutely nothing since none of us (assuming) are Congressman.
It means absolutely everything, since morality is so closely entwined with right and wrong, and our laws are just the codification of that.
And as for the legality of it -- no, it's not, not without a warrant. The whole point of warrants is to ensure oversight and that abuse doesn't happen. Whether or not it's actual call data, they don't have permission to have this data.
Just ask Qwest.
If knowledge is power and power corrupts, how will human kind ever survive? - The Outer Limits
I think this is relevant somehow, but I'm not sure how to put it.
Even if the government had a recording of every overseas call I ever made, along with complete biographies of everybody I talked to, AND a list of my favorite internet pr0n sites, they'd still have less information about me than amazon.com already does.
You voluntarily turn your data over to Amazon. You don't voluntarily turn it over to the government, which is barred from having the data in the first place without a warrant.
"Get over it"? That's the exact attitude that has led to illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong abuses like this! And it's disgusting.
Please reference the court case you're referring to.
... well, I did, and the link is there. It would take less time to move the cursor to the scroll bar, press the button, move the scroll bar up slightly, see the link, and click on it than it would to post and then wait for someone to do what I have, and tell you where the link is that you would have noticed ... if you had read the thread.
Uh, it already is referenced in the comment that all of these comments are replies to.
Funny thing is, one of the comments is yelling at someone for refusing to read
Mod this fucking bullshit down. What exactly does this add to the discussion? Oh, right, you want to make someone else look like a fool. Who's the one who looks like a fool, the one who thinks about an argument and then writes it down, or the one who just screams "MORON!!!!OMG!!!!" without an explanation of why, or a counterargument?