If no one refutes him, then someone else who comes along and reads it might think that his argument has logical merit. :)
This particular horse may prefer the funny Kool-Aid, but the rest of the herd may not. In light of that, I don't believe that I am wasting my time here.
The only examples I have seen are single officers or officials doing stupid things. I don't see any great wholesale invasion of anyones' rights by the police or other authorities.
One of these examples is in the blog post, which I guess you didn't thoroughly read.
They have the ability to see what can be seen with the naked eyeball..
Plus the ability to attach that information to a huge database with all sorts of private information about you, including your DNA.
That's the point. That's the problem. You want to stand there and write it down my number? Fine. But not a police officer, because that absolutely does violate my rights.
Your license plate number only become abusable when it's attached to a database with other private information, such as your name, birth date, and social security number. Police have this. You don't.
Further, my freedom is more important than anything else, and I lived through a real, live terrorist attack. I would do it again and again to preserve those freedoms. You can shrug that off if you like, but when you're being arrested and prosecuted for a crime that you didn't commit because you happened to drive by the wrong place at the wrong time, you'll wonder what happened to America and I'll already know.
An IP address is the license plate on a car, it's visible publically, it isn't an issue of privacy.
Also, I'll restate my point here. Your license plate number, like your IP address (if you're showing your actual address, which you're not legally required to do) only become abusable when it's attached to other private information, such as your name, birth date, and social security number. Your usual concerned citizen doesn't have open access to that type of information.
In this situation, your license plate number would become attached to such a database, which would be abusable by all kinds of people. If this doesn't matter, and isn't a problem, then you should give Techdirt permission to release your private information in conjunction with what you insist is your 'Internet license plate'.
After all, if you had my personal information, you would call me as I asked and we could talk. Apparently you don't have any information, my phone isn't ringing.
Yup, and those people haven't managed openness yet, as evidence by your quotation marks over the word 'leaked'.
Why can't Carrie Prejean just say, 'Sure, I made several dozen nude photos, and seven or eight sex tapes. What of it?' and Vanessa Hudgens to say, 'Yeah, I don't shave my bush. What of it?'.
They have to pretend like it's something shameful and wrong in public and that sucks.
What happens is concerned citizens write down every plate number that comes in through the gate, and enters it into a database and puts it online?
Your license plate number only become abusable when it's attached to a database with other private information, such as your name, birth date, and social security number. Your usual concerned citizen doesn't have open access to those types of databases.
Setting the bar higher for me, well, making you a fool.
No, actually, you're the foolish-looking one because, although you seem to be taking the position that it's okay for people to have abusable information about you, whenever they want, for no reason at all, you refuse to give any abusable information. :)
...to see people who are open about their real lives. It's sort of a Kinsey moment that we all have, where you realize that what people say they do and what they actually do are different, and it's a sad one.
I think that this sort of situation just brings us closer to the day when those two things are the same. I want to see the pop star who says, 'Yeah, those are my naked photos. What of it?'.
The FTC investigates sites that offer products that do bodily harm first, large amounts of money next, and so on down the line. This is explained on their website.
As far as this particular scam goes (and it is a scam), it seems like it's just not high enough on the food chain to warrant a smack-down with the resources that they currently have.
The FTC investigates sites that offer products that do bodily harm first, large amounts of money next, and so on down the line. This is explained on their website.
As far as this particular scam goes (and it is a scam), it seems like it's just not high enough on the food chain to warrant a smack-down with the resources that they currently have.
The FTC investigates sites that offer products that do bodily harm first, large amounts of money next, and so on down the line. This is explained on their website.
As far as this particular scam goes (and it is a scam), it seems like it's just not high enough on the food chain to warrant a smack-down with the resources that they currently have.
Did you read the document? If so, read it again. The Act requires that they furnish you the same report that they would furnish a paying company. Even previous to the establishment of the Act, they have one report per person. They don't generate a crappy report and a comprehensive report. :)
Further, your credit report not only provides you with all of the information in your credit file that could be provided by the consumer reporting company in a consumer report about you to a third party, but it also includes a record of everyone who has received a consumer report about you from the consumer reporting company within a certain period of time.
If anything it's better, not worse, because it is more comprehensive.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Having Something To Hide? (as Rose M. Welch)
If no one refutes him, then someone else who comes along and reads it might think that his argument has logical merit. :)
This particular horse may prefer the funny Kool-Aid, but the rest of the herd may not. In light of that, I don't believe that I am wasting my time here.
Re: Re: Re: Having Something To Hide? (as Rose M. Welch)
The only examples I have seen are single officers or officials doing stupid things. I don't see any great wholesale invasion of anyones' rights by the police or other authorities.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230680/What-kind-country-arrests-innocent -people-boost-DNA-database.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/21/traffic-cameras-used.html
http://boingboing.net/2008/04/21/person-info-from-uk.html
One of these examples is in the blog post, which I guess you didn't thoroughly read.
They have the ability to see what can be seen with the naked eyeball..
Plus the ability to attach that information to a huge database with all sorts of private information about you, including your DNA.
That's the point. That's the problem. You want to stand there and write it down my number? Fine. But not a police officer, because that absolutely does violate my rights.
Your license plate number only become abusable when it's attached to a database with other private information, such as your name, birth date, and social security number. Police have this. You don't.
Further, my freedom is more important than anything else, and I lived through a real, live terrorist attack. I would do it again and again to preserve those freedoms. You can shrug that off if you like, but when you're being arrested and prosecuted for a crime that you didn't commit because you happened to drive by the wrong place at the wrong time, you'll wonder what happened to America and I'll already know.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
An IP address is the license plate on a car, it's visible publically, it isn't an issue of privacy.
Also, I'll restate my point here. Your license plate number, like your IP address (if you're showing your actual address, which you're not legally required to do) only become abusable when it's attached to other private information, such as your name, birth date, and social security number. Your usual concerned citizen doesn't have open access to that type of information.
In this situation, your license plate number would become attached to such a database, which would be abusable by all kinds of people. If this doesn't matter, and isn't a problem, then you should give Techdirt permission to release your private information in conjunction with what you insist is your 'Internet license plate'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
After all, if you had my personal information, you would call me as I asked and we could talk. Apparently you don't have any information, my phone isn't ringing.
That's not even logical. Who fails again, lol?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
An IP address is the license plate on a car, it's visible publically, it isn't an issue of privacy.
No, it isn't. Unless it's legal to hide your license plate number with a spoofed license plate nowadays?
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm glad... (as Rose M. Welch)
Okay, I agree with that.
Right now though, they're mostly lying and covering it up, like Prejean did after the first nude photo and the first sex tape.
I'm not really knocking them for this, because society can be pretty damned compelling, whether you're Prejean or Clinton.
Re: Re: if anything we should be greatful to facebook (as Rose M. Welch)
Did you miss the 'follow it up' part?
Re: Readheads? (as Rose M. Welch)
Yes. The joke is how stupid people are, and how little personal responsibility they have.
Re: Re: I'm glad... (as Rose M. Welch)
Yup, and those people haven't managed openness yet, as evidence by your quotation marks over the word 'leaked'.
Why can't Carrie Prejean just say, 'Sure, I made several dozen nude photos, and seven or eight sex tapes. What of it?' and Vanessa Hudgens to say, 'Yeah, I don't shave my bush. What of it?'.
They have to pretend like it's something shameful and wrong in public and that sucks.
Having Something To Hide? (as Rose M. Welch)
Why is 'having something to hide' the benchmark here? Having something to hide does not mean that you have something criminal to hide.
Re: Re: Re: What's really frightening (as Rose M. Welch)
Why is 'having something to hide' the benchmark here? Having something to hide does not mean that you have something criminal to hide.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
What happens is concerned citizens write down every plate number that comes in through the gate, and enters it into a database and puts it online?
Your license plate number only become abusable when it's attached to a database with other private information, such as your name, birth date, and social security number. Your usual concerned citizen doesn't have open access to those types of databases.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
Setting the bar higher for me, well, making you a fool.
No, actually, you're the foolish-looking one because, although you seem to be taking the position that it's okay for people to have abusable information about you, whenever they want, for no reason at all, you refuse to give any abusable information. :)
Do I smell an asshat?
Re: Re: Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
What makes you think that 'will' and 'cause' are inclusive of one another?
Personally, having a badge tag on my vehicle tells me that I probably know more about what police are doing than you. :)
I'm glad... (as Rose M. Welch)
...to see people who are open about their real lives. It's sort of a Kinsey moment that we all have, where you realize that what people say they do and what they actually do are different, and it's a sad one.
I think that this sort of situation just brings us closer to the day when those two things are the same. I want to see the pop star who says, 'Yeah, those are my naked photos. What of it?'.
Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
Your house is in a public place, too. Usually, so is your body. Why don't we make it legal to search those at an officer's will as well?
Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
The FTC investigates sites that offer products that do bodily harm first, large amounts of money next, and so on down the line. This is explained on their website.
As far as this particular scam goes (and it is a scam), it seems like it's just not high enough on the food chain to warrant a smack-down with the resources that they currently have.
Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
The FTC investigates sites that offer products that do bodily harm first, large amounts of money next, and so on down the line. This is explained on their website.
As far as this particular scam goes (and it is a scam), it seems like it's just not high enough on the food chain to warrant a smack-down with the resources that they currently have.
Re: Re: Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
The FTC investigates sites that offer products that do bodily harm first, large amounts of money next, and so on down the line. This is explained on their website.
As far as this particular scam goes (and it is a scam), it seems like it's just not high enough on the food chain to warrant a smack-down with the resources that they currently have.
Re: Re: Re: (as Rose M. Welch)
Did you read the document? If so, read it again. The Act requires that they furnish you the same report that they would furnish a paying company. Even previous to the establishment of the Act, they have one report per person. They don't generate a crappy report and a comprehensive report. :)
Further, your credit report not only provides you with all of the information in your credit file that could be provided by the consumer reporting company in a consumer report about you to a third party, but it also includes a record of everyone who has received a consumer report about you from the consumer reporting company within a certain period of time.
If anything it's better, not worse, because it is more comprehensive.