backtop


Print 128 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 24 at 6:29 AM


  (Source: Puppet Government)
Government could reap a wealth of information from its citizens

Every day millions across the country navigate to government webpages, to read pertinent information. Since 2000 that access has been safeguarded, thanks to a prohibition on government websites using cookies or other tracking technology to track users.  Agency exceptions could only be granted under cases of "compelling need".

Now the Obama administration is looking to overturn that prohibition and potentially begin harvesting a wealth of data on its citizen's activities.  Under the plan, the prohibition would be replaced with a set of privacy provisions.  Aides say that it would increase government transparency and "increase public involvement".

The measure, though, has many opponents.  The American Civil Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball commented that the measure would "allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website."

Other opponents dislike that the government may be looking to revoke the protections at the request of search-engine giant Google and other parties.  The Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic Frontier Foundation, both of which oppose the measure, pointed to a February 19 contract with Google and an unnamed federal agency over an exemption to use the YouTube player.

EPIC retrieved the proposed changes, negotiated by the General Services Administration, through a Freedom of Information Act request and says they "expressly waive those rules or guidelines as they may apply to Google."  States EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg, "Our primary concern is that the GSA has failed to protect the privacy rights of U.S. citizens.  The expectation is they should be complying with the government regulations, not that the government should change its regulations to accommodate these companies."

Currently, government content is banned from having tracking cookies, but third-party content, such as YouTube videos on federal websites may have tracking cookies.  Google spokeswoman Christine Chen declined to discuss the new rules, but thanked the government for its use of YouTube, stating, "[The use of YouTube] is just one example of how government and citizens communicate more effectively online, and we are proud of having worked closely with the White House to provide privacy protections for users."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Showing their true colors
By therealnickdanger on 8/12/2009 2:52:58 PM , Rating: 5
All in the name of the "greater good" and for "greater transparency" and the new "open government". Sheesh... bunch of suckers fell for O-marketing.


RE: Showing their true colors
By SiliconJon on 8/12/2009 3:14:31 PM , Rating: 4
I would congratulate you, however your phrasing indicates you likely supported such breaches of rights and privacy under the previous administration, which makes you the other 50% of the problem.

Instead of taking turns with freedoms of different ideologies, such polarization and retardation of the masses has us rejoicing in our ability to take turns stealing freedoms from the "other side", all while yelling, and believing nothing more than, "Go, Team! Go!"

We only see the theft when it is taken from us, and we rationalize that thieving the other side is a balance to this problem. Thus the vicious circle continues.


RE: Showing their true colors
By Iaiken on 8/12/2009 3:24:46 PM , Rating: 4
^
Truth


RE: Showing their true colors
By jadeskye on 8/12/2009 3:36:09 PM , Rating: 5
Smells a bit like 1984 doesn't it?


RE: Showing their true colors
By TSS on 8/13/2009 4:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
Except i'm willing to bet this has been going on longer then 1984 :p


RE: Showing their true colors
By spartan014 on 8/13/2009 7:15:41 AM , Rating: 5
Nite Owl: But the country's disintegrating. What's happened to America? What's happened to the American dream?

The Comedian: It came true. You're lookin' at it. Now c'mon... let's really put these jokers through some changes.


RE: Showing their true colors
By gescom on 8/14/2009 8:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nite Owl: But the country's disintegrating. What's happened to America? What's happened to the American dream?


American dream? American capitalistic research & development dream?

Bernard Madoff happened, that's what's happened :) (not to mention many...). Good luck!


RE: Showing their true colors
By SiliconDoc on 8/13/2009 1:19:01 PM , Rating: 3
" The episode recalls a dispute in January when critics complained that a redesigned White House Web site featured embedded Google YouTube videos -- depicting events such as the president's weekly address -- that used tracking cookies. The White House and Google later reassured users that they had stopped collecting data. "
--
LOL - THEY GOT CAUGHT AND LATER SAID " THEY STOPPED COLLECTING DATA".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
hat tip to TheEinstein below
---
So what we have here is a government that will DO IT BEHIND OUR BACKS until they publicly get BUSTED, then " claim they stopped their misbehavior ".
Then they will cite an endless list of "an open public comment period" and "pride in how they worked to rpotect citizens" - and on and on and on and on... AFTER THEY GET BUSTED WITH THEIR DIRTY CRIMINAL RED HANDS COVERED IN BLOOD, AND CLAIM THEY HAVE IMMMEDIATELY STOPPED THEIR NAUGHTY BEHAVIOR !
---
roflmao - it's sooooooo pathetic !
----
BUSTED ! > " The terms of the contract, negotiated through the General Services Administration, "expressly waives those rules or guidelines as they may apply to Google." The contract was obtained by EPIC through a Freedom of Information Act request. "
BUSTED ! note above some watchdog had to request a FIOA and we all know that takes months and months, in the mean time the data collection was ongoing...
----------
here, enjoy the quotes of the very perps who were caught red handed and told us all they stopped collecting data...
--
" Google spokeswoman Christine Chen directed broader questions to the government, but said in a statement that the White House use of YouTube "is just one example of how government and citizens communicate more effectively online, and we are proud of having worked closely with the White House to provide privacy protections for users."
---
ROFLMAO > " GSA and White House officials would not answer questions, releasing only a statement by OMB spokesman Kenneth Baer that said the administration is committed to protecting users' privacy. "That is why when we asked for public comment on a new cookie policy, we specifically identified privacy considerations as a main area of focus," Baer wrote. "
--
Ahh, yes the kind and loving government gave the public a chance to comment - but wether that was before or after THE BIG FIOA BUST, who knows and who cares...
The government goes about it's evil changing deeds in the dark and in secret, and only when some freedom fighting watchdog digs through the red tape and yanks the truth out into the light with a 6 months or more extended long waiting FIOA request, does "the government" (and google) say " OH ! YOU CAUGHT US! GOLLY, WE WILL IMMEDIATELY STOP COLLECTING DATA ! WE WE'RE SO WRONG, SO NAUGHTY, WE WON'T DO THAT AGAIN ! "
----
Uhh...no they are most likely doing it right now, anyway, with another law slapped onto some gigantic 10,000 page omnibus bill that excuses them entirely from "the old rules", and in another 6 months some FIOA request will perhaps with luck dig out the "new workaround method" which no doubt is " the compelling exception clause" the article cited points out.


RE: Showing their true colors
By UNHchabo on 8/12/2009 4:00:00 PM , Rating: 5
I would've made a very similar comment, and I didn't like either candidate in this past election. I'm a libertarian, and I hate all infringements on our rights and privacy.


RE: Showing their true colors
By adiposity on 8/12/2009 4:38:32 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I'm a libertarian too.

The problem was the original poster implied that it was "falling for" Obama's campaign PR that is causing this type of intrusion.

Basically, "ha, you stupid liberals were tricked, Obama is a fascist."

Well, the problem is (as I'm sure you agree as a libertarian) that both parties are giving up our privacy rights every chance they get. It has nothing to do with "O-marketing," or falling for it. The bottom line is we effectively have two party choices for president and neither has a good record on this issue.

-Dan


RE: Showing their true colors
By foolsgambit11 on 8/12/2009 6:32:26 PM , Rating: 5
Calling yourself a libertarian means absolutely nothing in America. Almost all Americans are libertarians. Very few are members of the Libertarian Party. The average American believes in freedom, democracy, and limited government. "Except..." That's why you have conservative 'libertarians' who have problems with drug legalization or gay marriage, and liberal 'libertarians' who have problems with 'excessive' gun rights or national security restrictions.

The label libertarian covers them all, though, in their own mind. It is a meaningless label essentially synonymous with 'American'. At least in common usage.


RE: Showing their true colors
By PrezWeezy on 8/12/2009 6:50:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
That's why you have conservative 'libertarians' who have problems with drug legalization or gay marriage


Conservative, by definition, means they don't want the government to rule their personal life. Therefore a true "conservative" does not want the government to regulate drugs or homosexual marriage. Any Republican/Libertarian/Conservative who says they are for banning drugs and gays is very confused on what they actually believe.

Libertarian, however, is the reorganization of former Republicans who still actually want a conservative party. Republicans are no long conservative as a party and the Libertarians are attracting the true conservatives hand over fist. A libertarian wants a minimal government whose only job is to protect us from foreign threats. Foreign being the operative word.


RE: Showing their true colors
By Alexvrb on 8/12/2009 11:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're very confused about the meaning of "personal life". Example: Lets say I don't give a damn if you use drugs at home. However, I also don't want them being sold legally and openly on the (public) streets either. Should we try to create and enforce laws that only make drugs illegal to use publically (and therefore not illegal to create and use "privately")? Do you realize that would be even more laughable than what we do now?

Also I think your label of "true conservative" is cute, but naive, because in the end its just another label. I don't think even the most diehard libertarians wouldn't want the rules bent a little in their favor if it really hits the fan right on their front yard.


RE: Showing their true colors
By foolsgambit11 on 8/13/2009 1:30:16 AM , Rating: 1
Conservative, by definition, actually means interested in preserving the status quo, or possibly in returning to a previous status quo. Although in common usage, it would be the political 'right', as opposed to the political 'left' of liberals, the political 'up' of libertarians, and the political 'down' of the interventionists (who find their ultimate realization in totalitarianism).

I'm just making up the 'up' and 'down', I think. But I've always felt that the political spectrum was more of a Cartesian coordinate system than a mere left-right line. And even that doesn't cover the fact that, for instance, the Republican Party is socially about a (6,-3) (right, mildly interventionist) and economically about a (-7,6) (left (i.e., progressive, against the old status quo of protectionism) and libertarian), for instance. (The democrats being generally the opposite - left and a little interventionist on social issues and right and interventionist on economic issues, with a streak of Clintonite left-libertarians in there). And both parties can be dramatically different than their general position on specific issues. So even adding a dimension doesn't really allow an accurate mapping of a holistic approach to government.


RE: Showing their true colors
By adiposity on 8/12/2009 7:12:44 PM , Rating: 5
Well, I'm sorry that some have misused the term. However, I am a small "l" libertarian and I don't have any of those "excepts". I accept that these things will be regulated but I am still against it.

Maybe there are some reasonable limits, like not allowing individual possession of nuclear arms, but really I think the govt. goes too far on everything. That doesn't mean I don't understand why we have gun laws, for example. I just don't support them.

-Dan


RE: Showing their true colors
By foolsgambit11 on 8/13/2009 1:15:47 AM , Rating: 2
See, now that actually explains something about where you stand. I appreciate the clarification.


RE: Showing their true colors
By Ammohunt on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Showing their true colors
By jimbojimbo on 8/13/2009 3:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
You think an anarchist is an enemy of freedom? Umm....


RE: Showing their true colors
By adiposity on 8/17/2009 4:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
lol...


RE: Showing their true colors
By porkpie on 8/12/2009 11:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bottom line is we effectively have two party choices for president and neither has a good record on this issue.
One huge difference. Bush's intrusions on freedom and civil rights had very little impact on the average American. Compare that to something like ObamaCare, which will decimate freedom in 22% of our economy and...well, there really is no comparison.

(And for the record, I was against the Patriot Act from the first day it was proposed.)


RE: Showing their true colors
By chagrinnin on 8/13/2009 12:18:17 AM , Rating: 5
Hah! I was just sayin' to my girlfriend the other day,...

"Isn't it great to live in a country with 78% undecimated freedom in the economy."


RE: Showing their true colors
By therealnickdanger on 8/12/2009 4:06:56 PM , Rating: 5
The use of O-marketing was a giveaway? Hell, even Pepsi copied the Obama campaign for its own advertising. Or was it the paraphrasing of the ignored campaign promises of the current administration that exposed me?

I certainly supported more of the "breaches" of the previous administration, but at least those served a more logical purpose with the goal of combatting criminal action. This "breach" appears to be nothing more than another leftist method of sustaining power by isolating demographics in order to orchestrate more aggressive propaganda of political agendas. I see no value for the American people in this "breach" whatsoever other than to keep the powerful in power by means of voter manipulation.

That's just my opinion...


RE: Showing their true colors
By adiposity on 8/12/2009 5:01:57 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I see no value for the American people in this "breach" whatsoever other than to keep the powerful in power by means of voter manipulation.


It doesn't really matter what the reasoning for such a "breach" is. History has taught us that powers like this, once given, will be used in unexpected and unadvertised ways. It's basically guaranteed that they will be abused.

quote:
I certainly supported more of the "breaches" of the previous administration, but at least those served a more logical purpose with the goal of combatting criminal action.


This is what I'm talking about. You don't care that the govt. can wiretap us without a judge's order, as long as the stated purpose is to combat terrorism? Of course this power will be abused, and the excuse for having this power is kind of irrelevant.

It's kind of pathetic to turn a thing like losing personal privacy to the government into an excuse to say, "I told you so" about Obama. Because Bush was HORRIBLE for personal privacy. The government for the last 20 years has been increasingly bad. This is systemic and has very little to do with people getting euphoric over the idea of a dream candidate who will cure the US of its ills.

Most of those who "told you so" about Obama never really had anything to offer privacy advocates. Both parties have a horrendous record. After the last eight years of Bush's policies, the Republican party has a particularly grotesque blemish.

If you voted Libertarian in the last election, then I apologize. But somehow, I doubt it.

-Dan


RE: Showing their true colors
By Nfarce on 8/12/2009 5:21:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's kind of pathetic to turn a thing like losing personal privacy to the government into an excuse to say, "I told you so" about Obama. Because Bush was HORRIBLE for personal privacy. The government for the last 20 years has been increasingly bad.


I certainly don't disagree with that, but Bush's "illegal" wiretapping was overseas to US calls from nations that either support or are suspect in supporting terrorism. In fact, the Obama administration has decided to keep that same program in place. Team-O on the campaign trail last year said "no more illegal wiretapping."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135575/Oba...

Second and more to the point, a lot of the people who were all up in arms over the Bush administration's privacy invasions sure haven't raised a fuss on either of these projects. One can only assume it's because their guy is in office now. Come to think of it, I don't hear them whining about the out of control deficit spending either lately that has nearly doubled in a mere 7 months.

Either way, I think both Democrats and Republicans are failing this nation. Period.


RE: Showing their true colors
By adiposity on 8/12/2009 7:17:51 PM , Rating: 3
"Illegal" wiretapping is something else than admitting you are doing it. I almost prefer the former, though, at least then you acknowledge it isn't above board.

This is not "illegal" wiretapping, of course. I am still against it, but tracking is not wiretapping, per se.

You have to understand that "illegal" wiretapping means, "doing what the law says you can't do." If you change the law (e.g., PATRIOT act), it's not illegal. Either way I'm against it, but proposing to change the law and just ignoring it are very different things.

Again, not sure which is worse, admitting you are changing the law and setting a precedent that it is ok, or secretly ignoring the law and setting precedent that it is wrong.

-Dan


RE: Showing their true colors
By knutjb on 8/12/2009 10:41:17 PM , Rating: 4
Let me clear this once more. The Patriot Act STILL requires a warrant if ANY call was placed or received inside the US. It allows them to listen until they receive it within a short, specific, period of time. If they listened and found something, they must have a warrant to go to court, period.

One other major item that keeps the Patriot Act in a different league than what Obama is doing is that the Patriot Act MUST be renewed every 5 years by Congress. This enables refining of or removal of some or all pieces of the legislation based on legal and performance issues.

With so many foreign communications passing through the US it would be foolish to ignore them. These rules are very specific in their implementation and ALL errors have to be reported to Congress, as they have been.

The Federal Government has slowly crept into our lives via our computers. Government MUST get LEGAL permission through a warrant for ANY domestic surveillance of any kind. Computers, like our phones must be protected with warrants, no matter how easy it is to eves drop and down load it's information. As far as I'm concerned, if they know it IS an foreign national trying to access a site, open season just like the phone calls. Just like the phone calls, it must be reported to Congress. You know that balance of power thing.

Just because a US citizen accesses a Gov website, doesn't mean the Government has the right to download their entire contents.

For those who voted for "Change" are you getting what you expected? I didn't vote for him so I can't answer that, but I am curious. I'm not asking to be facetious.


RE: Showing their true colors
By adiposity on 8/13/2009 12:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me clear this once more. The Patriot Act STILL requires a warrant if ANY call was placed or received inside the US. It allows them to listen until they receive it within a short, specific, period of time. If they listened and found something, they must have a warrant to go to court, period.


Yes, the PATRIOT act does require this. However, the NSA surveillance program ("terrorist surveillance program"), warrants are not required. All that is required is that the NSA believe that one end of the conversation be outside the US. It doesn't actually have to be outside the US, the NSA just has to "think" it is! Add to that, the calls could go to Canada and qualify.

Now, if the belief of the NSA is all that is required to completely bypass wiretap laws and even the much more limited requirements of the PATRIOT act (which only requires a warrant, not a wiretap order), it basically means they can wiretap anyone.

Can they use the wiretap in court? Well, probably not. But is that all we care about?

-Dan


RE: Showing their true colors
By Nfarce on 8/13/2009 10:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is not "illegal" wiretapping, of course. I am still against it, but tracking is not wiretapping, per se.


You do realize that I used the " marks in reference to the mindless masses who like to scream illegal at the drop of a hat with everything I hope - at least during the previous administration anyway.


RE: Showing their true colors
By adiposity on 8/13/2009 12:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you might have referred to the "terrorist surveillance program," which as far as I am concerned is both "illegal" and illegal. No law allowed for it, but the NSA did it anyway. They completely bypassed wiretapping laws and the warrant requirements of the PATRIOT act.

Now, you can argue whether it's a good idea, of course. But legal? Not really.

-Dan


RE: Showing their true colors
By 2bits on 8/12/2009 7:41:42 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, so you hedge Bush's mass collection of data through monitoring phone calls, email, and just about everything else as mere "breaches", implying you barely consider them breaches at all.

But, when Obama wants to enable cookies on .gov sites like any other website since the dawn of the internet, well that's a "leftist method of sustaining power by isolating demographics in order to orchestrate more aggressive propaganda of political agendas".

Really... why are all the nut jobs the first to post in these threads? The more sane posts are almost always relegated to the bottom of the thread. It's just not right.


RE: Showing their true colors
By Nfarce on 8/13/2009 10:52:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
But, when Obama wants to enable cookies on .gov sites like any other website since the dawn of the internet, well that's a "leftist method of sustaining power by isolating demographics in order to orchestrate more aggressive propaganda of political agendas".


If you think this administration and fellow Chicago political goons won't do anything more with that data other than use it like cookie adware, then you are not only delusional, but ignorant. I'm sorry, there's no other way around it.

quote:
Really... why are all the nut jobs the first to post in these threads?


Nut jobs, eh? Well why don't you just go ahead and spit it out like the third in line to the presidency, Nancy Pelosi, called those who are exercising their free speech rights at the town hall health care: call these posters "Nazis" or "haters." It will make you feel so superior and smart and all... it must. Your dear leadership does it.


RE: Showing their true colors
By Danish1 on 8/13/2009 3:04:53 AM , Rating: 3
You sir speaketh the truth.

The net result of what you wrote is of course that the government is forever increasing its meddling where it has no business whatsoever.

Sadly, people who see it for what it is are only drops in the mindless sheeple ocean that is the voting population.


RE: Showing their true colors
By on 8/24/2009 5:33:44 AM , Rating: 1
POWERFUL POSTING MY FRIEND

WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AS IT SEEMS TO BE THE LEAST ADDRESSED YET THE MOST PRESSING.

DEMONCRATS AND REPUGNANTCUNTS ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.

THEY DIFFER ON TRIVIAL ISSUES (GAY MARRIAGE) BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE OUR PRIVACY AND LIBERTIES THEY ARE BEARING DOWN FULL THROTTLE ON BOTH.

A 3RD PARTY OR A MORE INFORMED VOTING PUBLIC IS THE ONLY WAY.

I FEAR THE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC STANDS IN OUR WAY, AND IS UNMOVABLE.


RE: Showing their true colors
By SiliconDoc on 8/13/2009 12:23:18 PM , Rating: 3
US Constitution, Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
----------------
In other words, the States and the people are the entities that should be in charge of and working out all these newly absconded with FEDERAL powers - such as "healthcare" - that now somehow the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT claims the US Constitution gave it a right to administer.
Same on these endless .gov websites - that are often another States and we the people power that the FEDDIES already STOLE by corrupt US Congressional legislation, and now have to have some gigantic nationwide .gov clearinghouse website to "distribute" by "tracking".
lol
What a gigantic tangled web the feds have weaved, when they have taken over what we have recieved.
---
The States - all 50 of them now, implementing their own 50 various "experiments" for we the people, wound up having the smart States copy the winning program - and the people able to flee to a State where they liked the implementation of governance.
With the FEDERAL GOV running anything, there are no longer 49 other choices to flee to, nor refinement and correction of "bad policies" over 50 experimental areas.
People seem to forget that as well.
---
Welcome to your one Federal Government only "order", with no place to run to and no place to hide.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki