Because Homeland Security is just an umbrella for several pre-existing agencies, one of which is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE.)
HSI (Homeland Security Investigations) appears to be at least a separate branch of ICE. The article even implies that these are two organizations working in tandem
From the website:
HSI investigates immigration crime, human rights violations and human smuggling, smuggling of narcotics, weapons and other types of contraband, financial crimes, cybercrime and export enforcement issues. ICE special agents conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation.
One of these things is not like the others (emphasis mine). Good to know that designer handbag manufacturers are now part of the "critical infrastructure industries".
You said Obama was elected because he "promised to increase taxes". He can't make that promise except cynically, because he doesn't have the AUTHORITY to implement it. I rather doubt he did make that promise. I expect he promised to work toward getting tax increases approved. Fine. So far, he has expended close to zero political capital toward that end.
Yes, you are correct. Obama promised to work towards getting tax increases approved. He did block (promised to veto and stopped for the time being) Bush tax-cut extensions. So he had done _something_ towards his promise
Perhaps even more accurately, Romney promised to work really hard to cut taxes further (and I believe him on that).
You really are "not sure what my point is" about the Presidential and the House results taken together?... The same electorate who went to the polls and gave Obama a narrow edge in the popular vote also gave Republicans a more substantial edge retained in the House. Which action constitutes a mandate?... Yes, the Representatives are not a single unit. So? They are 435 individual units, and every single one of those units stands for re-election every two years. The races are just as competitive as the electorate wants them to be. If you think you can explain the results away by gerrymandering, I'm not buying it.
Choosing a President can be seen as a mandate (though, even here, we are talking about 58.7 million vs 56.1 million votes). With house of representatives, I think the results are even more diluted. Plenty of other reasons to vote for R or D, the vote is often affected by how much voters hate the competing representative in the same district or some other issues. So I am not certain how much of a mandate one can draw from these results
I don't understand why you are not buying gerrymandering. I looked up the breakdown and it is 156 solid Democrat districts vs 193 solid Republican districts. The gains actually seem roughly proportional, wikipedia says it's 190D vs 240R (and 5 vacant) as of now. Is +34 Democrat wins vs +47 Republican wins say "mandate" to you? That's a 13 seat advantage out of 430 currently occupied ones.
It won't be too long before our friends at Raytheon etc. convince our others friends in the government that their newest drone is capable of making the 'kill decision' all by itself using some fancy schmancy software.
Um, there is a little detail you may have missed. The President doesn't have the AUTHORITY to change the tax structure. Congress does;
Well, no, he does not -- but he was leading the negotiations between D and R earlier and the only reason these negotiations fell apart is because the ratio of 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases was still not acceptable to the tea party.
I think they were seriously hoping to negotiate to 100% and 0% compromise.
yet - gee - the same electorate returned who returned Obama also returned a Republican majority in the all important House of Representatives.
Not sure what your point is. Representatives are not a single unit (like the President). There is a significant ratio of incumbent retention, mostly due to gerrymandering. Barely 5% of the races tend to be competitive or even in doubt (unless the incumbent retires). I wouldn't read into this at all.
Does not that then suggests that the government should cut back on military spending? But no, they prefer to cut NASA's budget. After the priority is to blow people and clog the banksters with money.
Don't forget the TSA monstrosity that has done absolutely nothing to stop a single terrorist in 11 years (and counting). That's an easy place to start cutting.
Also, much of the Iraq/Afganistan war spending was funded through "supplementary spending" bills, thus these expenses were never in the budget to begin with! Clever, n'est pas?
Sorry, the US electorate just finished voting in President Santa Claus who's mandate was "give us more free stuff" you won't see that budget cut of 50%,
Pure bullshit. Obama was chosen by the US electorate because he has promised to increase taxes to, you know, bring in more revenue. He is quite willing to cut spending, though to a lesser degree than Republicans. The budget can be balanced by either cutting spending, increasing income or, most likely by a combination of the two (one can argue where the balance lies)
Let's be realistic though. You guys are fucked, plain and simple and you're heading for a screaming doom much like Europe is unless you figure out that trying to spend your way out of debt is a bad idea.
Where are you based, anyway? How is your country managing? Got any good suggestions?
People just don't get it. The US government does not need to cut its budget by 3%. It needs to cut its budget by 50% or more.
It really isn't that simple, though. The process has to be gradual or everything will implode. Cut the budget by 50% and the economy will take such hit that US collected taxes will drop more than 50% (presumably necessitating further cuts, and so on). Not to mention how many people might starve without foodstamps while you are doing this.
Anyway, a good start would be to force our politicians to keep all wars IN the budget. Iraq and Afganistan are staying outside of the budget in "emergency appropriations" or whatever they are called.
The so-called "poisoned fruit" laws were struck down by our new, ultra-conservative, supreme court.
[citation needed]
Seriously, I know you are not a troll, but when has the "poison fruit" law been struck down, exactly?
I think they are fine with the case falling apart, because DotCom has been punished and his business dismantled. Once his case falls apart, his servers and paying customers would still be gone as they are now. And unless someone in law enforcement is punished, such procedure can be repeated as many times as necessary (i.e. once he opens his new business venture)
That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.
What makes you think they are trying to bring a real case? Megaupload is gone and buried. Servers are confiscated. Even the legitimate paid users have lost access to the files and are getting no compensation. Mission accomplished
You think there will be any penalties assessed against anyone once this case predictably falls apart? I wouldn't hold my breath (though here's hoping he will at least sue someone...)
You do not need to block ads if you have some self-respect. You have to visit ad-free and payment free pages. Good luck for that.
Ok, I will play this game
Dear advertiser,
Do not force me into blocking your ads. I am all for your ability to derive revenue from advertising, but you have forced my hand by:
1). Pop-ups and/or pop-unders
2). Epilepsy-inducing colors flashing in your ads
3). Loud obnoxious voices from your ad that start talking when I am browsing the web (and listening to my music)
4). Flash videos that start playing and take up 99% of my CPU, slowing both the browser and sometimes the computer itself to an utter crawl.
5). Java scripts from about 50 different websites doing the same
I have the option to disable advertising on slashdot, but I wouldn't do that. However, anything that tries to kill my browser performance or induce epilepsy by flashing colors _will_ be blocked. I have a pretty powerful machine, but Firefox literally stops for 20 seconds or more when I open 4-5 tabs from Google news (and I am fine with avoiding websites that do that, but I cannot remember them all)
Data on when the student enters and exits the classroom?
In what manner is it even possible to abuse that; which doesn't exist with normal manual attendance taking?
No, not that
Data on where/how the student spends her lunch break.
Data on when the student goes to the bathroom.
Not to mention concerns regarding fake card swipes (oh, the student is missing? But she was regularly attending every class with her friend for the last two days. With the exact same entry/exit times, too.).
Well, technically by not being "in attendance" they do, because thanks to some stupid laws (NCLB, I think?) high school funding is based on attendance. If a student is absent more than X days, the school is denied funding for that student (and it's easier ot just expel them and wipe their hands clean than anything).... Which leads to solutions like this, where they don't care if one student swipes 10 RFID cards entering a class - they just want the record to state that said student was "present" at that class for that money.
The solution is clear then
Schools cannot be allowed to claim RFID swipes as "attendance" since they in no way serve as a guarantee of attendance. This would solve everyone's problems...
Actually that's exactly how it works. You don't call the police directly like you're reporting robbery though. Your lawyers see a judge and file charges and obtain a warrant. THEN the police get involved and go to the defendant and gather evidence.
I am not a lawyer, and this is a different country we are talking about. But I was under the impression that you have to actually sue the opposing party in civil court _first_. Then warrant may be given to perform discovery of whatever judge allows you to discover
Otherwise where exactly would this evidence go to? Some evidence is sent directly to the judge (and there is no judge).
It would be pretty hilarious if the police can just take the girl's laptop directly to the (civilly) suing party. Do they (CIAPC) have to give the laptop back? How long do they have to preform discovery? Does police perform their own forensic analysis during a civil lawsuit?
This is a civil violation, not a criminal one.... It's extortion to demand money not to turn someone in for a criminal violation, but in civil matters you are free to offer a deal in exchange for not pressing charges.... You can't blame the police for enforcing the law, it's also what they DO.
Sorry, you are not making sense.
Yes, you can offer a deal in civil violation cases, but you certainly do not get to call in police to back you up if the opponent turns down the deal.
Please decide -- either it's a criminal violation (then the police are enforcing the law and 600 euro get-out-of -jail bribe is ridiculous) or it is a civil violation (and in that case what "law" is police enforcing, exactly?). I thought it was criminal, since police raided their house.
Thank you for the link
It's the tidbits like this that make me feel warm and fuzzy about copyright and police:
"It would have been easier for all concerned if you had paid the compensation," the police advised
Any other law violation you either get searched/charged or let off the hook. How about next time you are charged with (actual) theft, someone calls you first and offers to pay 600 euros to avoid the hassle? Why is this a valid option for copyright violation accusations?
They didn't like the results...... so they cancelled the poll.
But they didn't have to do anything (polling is not done by an independent agency), so why worry about poll results? More likely they found that poll participation resulted in better user awareness of just how bad FB privacy policy is.
Funny how every change FB makes is for improving user feedback and privacy. Even two opposite changes manage qualify as an improvement in their PR speak.
If you are suing, then cell phones, Facebook and email are all part of the evidence in the case. Without reading the sepcifics I cannot tell you why the judge wanted it.
Also, TFA clearly states that the accounts are turned over to the forensics expert not to the defendant. Forensics expert hopefully being an impartial observer here - it's not like the defendant has their account to himself.
I can't find any issues here that can really be raised for a minor in school, that the school is responsible for, that is essentially any different than the school id I had 20 years ago.
If nothing else, I'd worry that the school will rely on the RFID reports and not check actual student attendance. Who cares if a student is missing -- if her RFID (carried by a friend) reports her to be in school. Might take a day before anyone notices.
How about burglary (1-20 years depending on state) and possession of stolen property (up to 10 years in Washington State) would be the similar charge.
Interesting point on possession of stolen property... Possession of copies of stolen property?
But -- can you get charged with burglary if the door was open?
if you saw an open bank vault... do you help yourself, tell the bank, or shout about it from the rooftops? Andrew Auernheimer shouted from the rooftops and deserves punishment.
1. Up to 10 years total seems a tad high, since we are talking about emails, not a bank
2. He is being charged with "handling private data" and "unauthorized access" to a computer. Tell me which one of these charges is equivalent to the "shouting from the rooftops".
If only his case involved charges such as "disseminating private information" or "promoting identity theft", but neither one of them looks like that.
Would you be saying something different if someone found a warehouse door open and reported it on a scrounger web site before they reported it to the owner of the warehouse?
Neither of his charges is about publicizing the the info. I could probably get on board with that
It seems that his charges are:
1. "by being in possession of the e-mails from AT&Tâ(TM)s leaky system he handled 'identification information'"
2. "case is based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which forbids 'unauthorized access' to a computer." (definitely the equivalent of being charged for trespassing)
Show me which charge involves disseminating information on a scrounger website? Up to 5 years for trespassing in an open warehouse seems ridiculous (each charge carries up to 5 years)
If he is guilty of publishing the info - let's see a law that charges him with disseminating "identification information". But trying to make marginally related things stick is very, very dangerous.
The US has not passed a proper federal budget since NINETEEN-FUCKING-NINETY-SEVEN.
Ooh, yeah, I like the fact that wars have managed to stay off the budget completely. What's up with emergency supplemental appropriations bills that funded Iraq/Afganistan? Where were the budget-conservative Republicans when those passed?
(I know that both parties are the same, blah blah... but Republicans _are_ running on "no more taxes/no more debt" platform)
AT&T wasn't breaking the law, whistleblower statutes do not apply.
It must have. From TFA:
One alleges that by being in possession of the e-mails from AT&Tâ(TM)s leaky system he handled 'identification information' in breach of a law intended to protect against identity theft,
I am certain that laws protecting us against identity fraud mandate that the "identification information" is shielded from theft. AT&T has clearly failed to protect the information.
Hah! You might as well ask where is the response to that petition, because I assure you -- it has already been written (or it will be copy-pasted from this very bill).
Since anti-TSA petition got a response from the TSA director, who hasn't even pretended to address the complaints, I see no reason for writing a petition. He hasn't read the text of the "abolish TSA" petition, because he just responded by summarizing how great TSA is in his opinion (didn't argue with complaints, didn't promise to improve, just said "we are great and we have some awesome plans for the next 10 years").
Slashdot Mirror
Because Homeland Security is just an umbrella for several pre-existing agencies, one of which is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE.)
HSI (Homeland Security Investigations) appears to be at least a separate branch of ICE. The article even implies that these are two organizations working in tandem
From the website:
HSI investigates immigration crime, human rights violations and human smuggling, smuggling of narcotics, weapons and other types of contraband, financial crimes, cybercrime and export enforcement issues. ICE special agents conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation.
One of these things is not like the others (emphasis mine).
Good to know that designer handbag manufacturers are now part of the "critical infrastructure industries".
Are sales of fake professional sports jerseys jeopardizing our national security now?
You said Obama was elected because he "promised to increase taxes". He can't make that promise except cynically, because he doesn't have the AUTHORITY to implement it. I rather doubt he did make that promise. I expect he promised to work toward getting tax increases approved. Fine. So far, he has expended close to zero political capital toward that end.
Yes, you are correct. Obama promised to work towards getting tax increases approved. He did block (promised to veto and stopped for the time being) Bush tax-cut extensions. So he had done _something_ towards his promise
Perhaps even more accurately, Romney promised to work really hard to cut taxes further (and I believe him on that).
You really are "not sure what my point is" about the Presidential and the House results taken together? ... The same electorate who went to the polls and gave Obama a narrow edge in the popular vote also gave Republicans a more substantial edge retained in the House. Which action constitutes a mandate? ... Yes, the Representatives are not a single unit. So? They are 435 individual units, and every single one of those units stands for re-election every two years. The races are just as competitive as the electorate wants them to be. If you think you can explain the results away by gerrymandering, I'm not buying it.
Choosing a President can be seen as a mandate (though, even here, we are talking about 58.7 million vs 56.1 million votes). With house of representatives, I think the results are even more diluted. Plenty of other reasons to vote for R or D, the vote is often affected by how much voters hate the competing representative in the same district or some other issues. So I am not certain how much of a mandate one can draw from these results
I don't understand why you are not buying gerrymandering. I looked up the breakdown and it is 156 solid Democrat districts vs 193 solid Republican districts. The gains actually seem roughly proportional, wikipedia says it's 190D vs 240R (and 5 vacant) as of now. Is +34 Democrat wins vs +47 Republican wins say "mandate" to you? That's a 13 seat advantage out of 430 currently occupied ones.
It won't be too long before our friends at Raytheon etc. convince our others friends in the government that their newest drone is capable of making the 'kill decision' all by itself using some fancy schmancy software.
Yep. It will probably go something like this.
Um, there is a little detail you may have missed. The President doesn't have the AUTHORITY to change the tax structure. Congress does;
Well, no, he does not -- but he was leading the negotiations between D and R earlier and the only reason these negotiations fell apart is because the ratio of 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases was still not acceptable to the tea party.
I think they were seriously hoping to negotiate to 100% and 0% compromise.
yet - gee - the same electorate returned who returned Obama also returned a Republican majority in the all important House of Representatives.
Not sure what your point is. Representatives are not a single unit (like the President). There is a significant ratio of incumbent retention, mostly due to gerrymandering. Barely 5% of the races tend to be competitive or even in doubt (unless the incumbent retires). I wouldn't read into this at all.
Does not that then suggests that the government should cut back on military spending? But no, they prefer to cut NASA's budget. After the priority is to blow people and clog the banksters with money.
Don't forget the TSA monstrosity that has done absolutely nothing to stop a single terrorist in 11 years (and counting). That's an easy place to start cutting.
Also, much of the Iraq/Afganistan war spending was funded through "supplementary spending" bills, thus these expenses were never in the budget to begin with! Clever, n'est pas?
Sorry, the US electorate just finished voting in President Santa Claus who's mandate was "give us more free stuff" you won't see that budget cut of 50%,
Pure bullshit. Obama was chosen by the US electorate because he has promised to increase taxes to, you know, bring in more revenue. He is quite willing to cut spending, though to a lesser degree than Republicans. The budget can be balanced by either cutting spending, increasing income or, most likely by a combination of the two (one can argue where the balance lies)
Let's be realistic though. You guys are fucked, plain and simple and you're heading for a screaming doom much like Europe is unless you figure out that trying to spend your way out of debt is a bad idea.
Where are you based, anyway? How is your country managing? Got any good suggestions?
People just don't get it. The US government does not need to cut its budget by 3%. It needs to cut its budget by 50% or more.
It really isn't that simple, though. The process has to be gradual or everything will implode. Cut the budget by 50% and the economy will take such hit that US collected taxes will drop more than 50% (presumably necessitating further cuts, and so on). Not to mention how many people might starve without foodstamps while you are doing this.
Anyway, a good start would be to force our politicians to keep all wars IN the budget. Iraq and Afganistan are staying outside of the budget in "emergency appropriations" or whatever they are called.
The so-called "poisoned fruit" laws were struck down by our new, ultra-conservative, supreme court.
[citation needed]
Seriously, I know you are not a troll, but when has the "poison fruit" law been struck down, exactly?
I think they are fine with the case falling apart, because DotCom has been punished and his business dismantled. Once his case falls apart, his servers and paying customers would still be gone as they are now. And unless someone in law enforcement is punished, such procedure can be repeated as many times as necessary (i.e. once he opens his new business venture)
That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.
What makes you think they are trying to bring a real case? Megaupload is gone and buried. Servers are confiscated. Even the legitimate paid users have lost access to the files and are getting no compensation. Mission accomplished
You think there will be any penalties assessed against anyone once this case predictably falls apart? I wouldn't hold my breath (though here's hoping he will at least sue someone...)
You do not need to block ads if you have some self-respect. You have to visit ad-free and payment free pages. Good luck for that.
Ok, I will play this game
Dear advertiser,
Do not force me into blocking your ads. I am all for your ability to derive revenue from advertising, but you have forced my hand by:
1). Pop-ups and/or pop-unders
2). Epilepsy-inducing colors flashing in your ads
3). Loud obnoxious voices from your ad that start talking when I am browsing the web (and listening to my music)
4). Flash videos that start playing and take up 99% of my CPU, slowing both the browser and sometimes the computer itself to an utter crawl.
5). Java scripts from about 50 different websites doing the same
I have the option to disable advertising on slashdot, but I wouldn't do that. However, anything that tries to kill my browser performance or induce epilepsy by flashing colors _will_ be blocked. I have a pretty powerful machine, but Firefox literally stops for 20 seconds or more when I open 4-5 tabs from Google news (and I am fine with avoiding websites that do that, but I cannot remember them all)
They'll probably abuse it.)
Data on when the student enters and exits the classroom?
In what manner is it even possible to abuse that; which doesn't exist with normal manual attendance taking?
No, not that
Data on where/how the student spends her lunch break.
Data on when the student goes to the bathroom.
Not to mention concerns regarding fake card swipes (oh, the student is missing? But she was regularly attending every class with her friend for the last two days. With the exact same entry/exit times, too.).
Well, technically by not being "in attendance" they do, because thanks to some stupid laws (NCLB, I think?) high school funding is based on attendance. If a student is absent more than X days, the school is denied funding for that student (and it's easier ot just expel them and wipe their hands clean than anything). ... Which leads to solutions like this, where they don't care if one student swipes 10 RFID cards entering a class - they just want the record to state that said student was "present" at that class for that money.
The solution is clear then
Schools cannot be allowed to claim RFID swipes as "attendance" since they in no way serve as a guarantee of attendance. This would solve everyone's problems...
Actually that's exactly how it works. You don't call the police directly like you're reporting robbery though. Your lawyers see a judge and file charges and obtain a warrant. THEN the police get involved and go to the defendant and gather evidence.
I am not a lawyer, and this is a different country we are talking about. But I was under the impression that you have to actually sue the opposing party in civil court _first_. Then warrant may be given to perform discovery of whatever judge allows you to discover
Otherwise where exactly would this evidence go to? Some evidence is sent directly to the judge (and there is no judge).
It would be pretty hilarious if the police can just take the girl's laptop directly to the (civilly) suing party. Do they (CIAPC) have to give the laptop back? How long do they have to preform discovery? Does police perform their own forensic analysis during a civil lawsuit?
This is a civil violation, not a criminal one. ... It's extortion to demand money not to turn someone in for a criminal violation, but in civil matters you are free to offer a deal in exchange for not pressing charges. ... You can't blame the police for enforcing the law, it's also what they DO.
Sorry, you are not making sense.
Yes, you can offer a deal in civil violation cases, but you certainly do not get to call in police to back you up if the opponent turns down the deal.
Please decide -- either it's a criminal violation (then the police are enforcing the law and 600 euro get-out-of -jail bribe is ridiculous) or it is a civil violation (and in that case what "law" is police enforcing, exactly?). I thought it was criminal, since police raided their house.
It's the tidbits like this that make me feel warm and fuzzy about copyright and police:
"It would have been easier for all concerned if you had paid the compensation," the police advised
Any other law violation you either get searched/charged or let off the hook.
How about next time you are charged with (actual) theft, someone calls you first and offers to pay 600 euros to avoid the hassle? Why is this a valid option for copyright violation accusations?
They didn't like the results ... ... so they cancelled the poll.
But they didn't have to do anything (polling is not done by an independent agency), so why worry about poll results? More likely they found that poll participation resulted in better user awareness of just how bad FB privacy policy is.
Funny how every change FB makes is for improving user feedback and privacy. Even two opposite changes manage qualify as an improvement in their PR speak.
If you are suing, then cell phones, Facebook and email are all part of the evidence in the case. Without reading the sepcifics I cannot tell you why the judge wanted it.
Also, TFA clearly states that the accounts are turned over to the forensics expert not to the defendant. Forensics expert hopefully being an impartial observer here - it's not like the defendant has their account to himself.
I can't find any issues here that can really be raised for a minor in school, that the school is responsible for, that is essentially any different than the school id I had 20 years ago.
If nothing else, I'd worry that the school will rely on the RFID reports and not check actual student attendance.
Who cares if a student is missing -- if her RFID (carried by a friend) reports her to be in school. Might take a day before anyone notices.
How about burglary (1-20 years depending on state) and possession of stolen property (up to 10 years in Washington State) would be the similar charge.
Interesting point on possession of stolen property... Possession of copies of stolen property?
But -- can you get charged with burglary if the door was open?
if you saw an open bank vault ... do you help yourself, tell the bank, or shout about it from the rooftops? Andrew Auernheimer shouted from the rooftops and deserves punishment.
1. Up to 10 years total seems a tad high, since we are talking about emails, not a bank
2. He is being charged with "handling private data" and "unauthorized access" to a computer. Tell me which one of these charges is equivalent to the "shouting from the rooftops".
If only his case involved charges such as "disseminating private information" or "promoting identity theft", but neither one of them looks like that.
Would you be saying something different if someone found a warehouse door open and reported it on a scrounger web site before they reported it to the owner of the warehouse?
Neither of his charges is about publicizing the the info. I could probably get on board with that
It seems that his charges are:
1. "by being in possession of the e-mails from AT&Tâ(TM)s leaky system he handled 'identification information'"
2. "case is based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which forbids 'unauthorized access' to a computer." (definitely the equivalent of being charged for trespassing)
Show me which charge involves disseminating information on a scrounger website? Up to 5 years for trespassing in an open warehouse seems ridiculous (each charge carries up to 5 years)
If he is guilty of publishing the info - let's see a law that charges him with disseminating "identification information". But trying to make marginally related things stick is very, very dangerous.
The US has not passed a proper federal budget since NINETEEN-FUCKING-NINETY-SEVEN.
Ooh, yeah, I like the fact that wars have managed to stay off the budget completely. What's up with emergency supplemental appropriations bills that funded Iraq/Afganistan? Where were the budget-conservative Republicans when those passed?
(I know that both parties are the same, blah blah... but Republicans _are_ running on "no more taxes/no more debt" platform)
AT&T wasn't breaking the law, whistleblower statutes do not apply.
It must have. From TFA:
One alleges that by being in possession of the e-mails from AT&Tâ(TM)s leaky system he handled 'identification information' in breach of a law intended to protect against identity theft,
I am certain that laws protecting us against identity fraud mandate that the "identification information" is shielded from theft. AT&T has clearly failed to protect the information.
where is a petition against this that I can sign?
Hah! You might as well ask where is the response to that petition, because I assure you -- it has already been written (or it will be copy-pasted from this very bill).
Since anti-TSA petition got a response from the TSA director, who hasn't even pretended to address the complaints, I see no reason for writing a petition. He hasn't read the text of the "abolish TSA" petition, because he just responded by summarizing how great TSA is in his opinion (didn't argue with complaints, didn't promise to improve, just said "we are great and we have some awesome plans for the next 10 years").