Topic 'Re: Chief Privacy Officer?' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533475 en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:17:47 EDT Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:17:47 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22542628 said by cline3621:

I would ask you to do some reasearch on 'Brandon Mayfield' and his situation with the federal government from 2004-2009 before saying what is quoted above.

Unfortunately, I could not find the link to the Wall Street Journal story that talked about the FBI illegally entering Mr. Mayfields residence without warrant, to set listening devices on his telephones. many things wrong here.

First: the Brandon Mayfield case is completely unconnected to the AT&T wiretap case. The question posed to you was "point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned". You failed.

Second: For God's sake please learn the difference between "illegal" and "civil lawsuit". I am so sick of people here screaming "ILLEGAL!" when a civil suit is involved.

Third: None of the USA Patriot act has been overturned. The FBI was just stupid and didn't check their evidence well enough. However, getting past that, if they believed that a fingerprint matched one found at the Madrid terrorist site, they did exactly what they were supposed to do under the Patriot act. They got authorization to wiretap and search. And when they got called on their stupidity, guess what, THE SYSTEM WORKED. He was released. He filed a suit and was awarded damages. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22542628 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:54:32 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22538530 said by Matt:

I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get.
Lets ask ol Ben what he thinks about this attitude.
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
Hmm, Ban makes more sense than what you have said Matt.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22538530 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:26:53 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22536052 said by Matt:

For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more. I would ask you to do some reasearch on 'Brandon Mayfield' and his situation with the federal government from 2004-2009 before saying what is quoted above.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield

»www.criminaljustice.org/public.n···Document

»www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/

Unfortunately, I could not find the link to the Wall Street Journal story that talked about the FBI illegally entering Mr. Mayfields residence without warrant, to set listening devices on his telephones. Since I'm at work right now I don't have the time to find it. :(

But to keep it short, this man was arrested, without charge, on manufactured evidence. It took pleading from the Spanish authorities to begin the process of clearing this man's name.

As a side note stuff like this has happened in the past. Does the name Richard Jewell ring a bell? It was a fairly similar situation in 1996 and his rights were violated just the same. He had to fight tooth and nail to even begin to clear his name. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22536052 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:32:37 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22536021 said by ThrowDemsOut:

Well, the NYTimes thinks the new policy is a genuine attempt to tell customers about their rights:...
AT&T believes their customers DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS! Period. That they are formulating a new restatement/summary of exactly what rights you do NOT have, it does not portend any change in their basic assumption that you have none as far as they are concerned. Fact, borne out by their actions in violating, and or forcing you to waive, any rights you may have had in order to obtain service from them.

FUCK AT&T!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22536021 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:32:18 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22535746 said by Matt:

don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get. Every advantage.

EVERY Advantage.

Really?

Stalinist Law Enforcement gained every advantage they could. So did Nazi Law Enforcement, Maoist Communist, etc.

I fail to understand how moving our government closer toward unlimited control over it's citizenry, brings us closer to the country that the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Couldn't we use you as a test subject, by giving government huge increases in power over your life and see how your family thrives under it?

Then we could decide whether to inflict it upon the rest of America.

NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22535746 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:48:14 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22535045 said by badtrip:

f you mean I want this to be argued in court but Bush/Obama says no and that answer in turn makes me want the issue to be argued in court even more, then I'd agree with you.
Innocent until proven guilty only works when one can actually GO TO COURT.
Sorry to be a broken record but you all are way off track. The wiretap case is not about "innocent or guilty". It's not about "broken laws" or "criminal activity". It's simply a civil lawsuit alleging that a group of people were harmed, and citing the Constitution. No criminal case or lawbreaking has ever been alleged, much less put on a court docket. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22535045 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:58:42 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534968 said by Matt:

I do feel better though, they all "assure" me they take privacy VERY seriously. Whew, thank god for words rather than actions. I was starting to doubt their sincerity.
Well, the NYTimes thinks the new policy is a genuine attempt to tell customers about their rights:

»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/1···out-you/
But I’ve been talking to Dorothy Attwood, AT&T’s chief privacy officer, about this project for several weeks. And it does seem like an earnest effort to lay out for people what AT&T knows about them.

To my reading, there is in fact a directness to the policy that is often lacking. (If you are interested, read it yourself and leave your reaction in the comments.)

The policy is certainly explicit in addressing many practices that other companies gloss over. The site is up front about the fact that it will give information about you in response to government subpoenas, government orders and lawful discovery requests” in civil suits.

AT&T says it will treat as personal “information that directly identifies or reasonably can be used to identify an individual Customer or User.” That definition forces the company to protect anything that a court or regulator might well find can reasonably be used to track someone down.

--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534968 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:46:03 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534494 said by Matt:

If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more.
...and "knowing" things is horrible, isn't it? Oh wait "knowing" things is actually the opposite of horrible.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534494 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:29:17 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534457 said by Matt:

said by badtrip:

Wow.

No one can point to anything that has been done wrong with the data because the Bush/Obama administrations would/will not let any case regarding this matter go to court.

You have to go to court ***before*** you can determine that any laws were broken. The very fact that they do not allow this issue into the courts is very damning IMO.
You would hold up the constitution as a shield with one hand a seek to supplant ... oh wait, let me start over. You hold up the constitution in one hand yet are willing to discard other basic rights such as the right of "innocent until proven guilty." If the government deems this a critical to national security, too critical to be publicly disclosed, then I trust them.

What I think drives people nuts about things like this is the same basic human trait that many children display. If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more.
If you mean I want this to be argued in court but Bush/Obama says no and that answer in turn makes me want the issue to be argued in court even more, then I'd agree with you.

Innocent until proven guilty only works when one can actually GO TO COURT.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534457 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:24:27 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534432 said by Matt:

said by badtrip:

You did. Or have they changed police depts from being govt agencies?
Then by your logic all governmental agencies are the police? Interesting.
Sorry no. I studied set theory. By my logic all police departments are government agencies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534432 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:20:04 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534342 said by badtrip:

You did. Or have they changed police depts from being govt agencies?
Then by your logic all governmental agencies are the police? Interesting.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534342 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:08:58 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534334 said by badtrip:

Wow.

No one can point to anything that has been done wrong with the data because the Bush/Obama administrations would/will not let any case regarding this matter go to court.

You have to go to court ***before*** you can determine that any laws were broken. The very fact that they do not allow this issue into the courts is very damning IMO.
You would hold up the constitution as a shield with one hand a seek to supplant ... oh wait, let me start over. You hold up the constitution in one hand yet are willing to discard other basic rights such as the right of "innocent until proven guilty." If the government deems this a critical to national security, too critical to be publicly disclosed, then I trust them.

What I think drives people nuts about things like this is the same basic human trait that many children display. If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534334 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:07:09 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534291 said by Matt:

said by badtrip:

said by Matt:

You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them.
The police's function is not to insulate the citizenry from harm (physical or otherwise); their function is social control and protection of private property.
Who said anything about the police?
You did. Or have they changed police depts from being govt agencies?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534291 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:01:40 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534282 said by Matt:

For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more.

On my "things to worry about meter," this ranks pretty low. It's sits between whether I should have chicken or fish for lunch today and my post-shower decision of boxers or briefs.
Wow.

No one can point to anything that has been done wrong with the data because the Bush/Obama administrations would/will not let any case regarding this matter go to court.

You have to go to court ***before*** you can determine that any laws were broken. The very fact that they do not allow this issue into the courts is very damning IMO.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534282 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:00:06 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534270 said by badtrip:

said by Matt:

You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them.
The police's function is not to insulate the citizenry from harm (physical or otherwise); their function is social control and protection of private property.
Who said anything about the police?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534270 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:58:35 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534247 said by SLD:

You've obviously never studied Constitutional Law, or truly understand the concept of the "slippery slope".
Your assumption is wrong. I simply don't care. For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more.

On my "things to worry about meter," this ranks pretty low. It sits between whether I should have chicken or fish for lunch today and my post-shower decision of boxers or briefs.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534247 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:56:10 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534181 said by Matt:

You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them.
The police's function is not to insulate the citizenry from harm (physical or otherwise); their function is social control and protection of private property.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534181 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:48:35 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534165 said by Matt:

I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get.
While I do agree that law enforcement needs to exploit advantages so that they can do their job as fairly and efficiently as possible.

I do not think said advantages should be gained by pursuing measures that are against the law. Further, I do not trust US law enforcement agencies in their current state to do anything fairly or efficiently.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534165 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:45:46 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534139
And no one is tying hands behind the back or blinding law enforcement. Just asking the to do their jobs while abiding to the Constitution. The primary document that protects *you* from tyranny.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534139 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:43:09 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534111 said by SLD:

Even if it lead to losing other important Constitutionally protected rights? I mean, if you're willing to give up privacy, why not freedom of speech while you're at it?
I have a problem with statements that start with "even if it leads to... " When it starts leading down that path, we can address the problem. I don't see how any "constitutional rights" were violated and think linking it to the 4th amendment is a bit of a stretch.

Right now, we need to get out of the way of law enforcement and let them do their job. Whether people want to believe it or not -- and the last days bear out my point -- we have US Citizens who want to harm this country and its citizens. You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534111 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:38:46 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534057 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22534057 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:27:42 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533990 said by Matt:

said by badtrip:

Because of the fact that AT&T was "funneling data wholesale to the government " they will never see another penny from me, ever.
I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get.
Even if it violates the law?
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533990 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:14:16 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533962 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533962 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:10:01 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533819 said by badtrip:

Because of the fact that AT&T was "funneling data wholesale to the government " they will never see another penny from me, ever.
I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533819 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:44:24 EDT Re: Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533666 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533666 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:20:45 EDT Chief Privacy Officer? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533475
I do feel better though, they all "assure" me they take privacy VERY seriously. Whew, thank god for words rather than actions. I was starting to doubt their sincerity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Chief-Privacy-Officer-22533475 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:51:06 EDT