Just How Clsoe to the Abyss are We Today?

[jocoshock]

I think we all get it. I'm not trying to be rude, but what is your point? Is your point that it's okay for the government to intrude because the private sector intrudes? Is your point that the government buys software from private businesses? What?

If you get it, then you already know the point I am making.

It's fine to be concerned with the government intruding on your privacy, but corporate America via the Internet is just as big a threat if not bigger. Yet we see no threads on ShockerNet about it. Everyone is obsessed about smaller, less intrusive government, but quite frankly, smaller, less intrusive government just opens the door even wider for the private sector to run amok with your privacy.

If you truly get it, then you would be equally concerned about both and expressing your concern about both equally...

[jocoshock]

Because with the private sector you agree to it. The gov't just goes and does it. I'm normally pretty cautious about sites that I agree to anything and I'll typically scroll through the agreement and look for certain issues that I may be curious about. But as you said, we have the option to agree to their terms or not. DC doesn't give us a choice.

As far as your other example, your employer typically lays out the rules and you know they have the ability to monitor your computers as they are company property. I'll admit that with my current employer, I shouldn't be on this site or some others based on the rules laid out, but I've also had conversations with the IT department and they know how slow the location is that I work at is at times and don't care much about what I do within reason. Certain things are blocked. I also know that they have access to any and all emails. I know one location that went through email communications between employees and found our how unhappy so many were. Some were let go, some left on their own. But information was shared between different locations and they didn't hide the fact.

All true, but when an employer or prospective employer insists that they have access to your personal information (social networking, etc) as a condition of employment, that is a form of coercion. Yes, you are free to decline the employment, but in a tight job market that can be easier said than done for many people. Many businesses take the stand, whether intended or not, that you have no rights to privacy as long as you draw a paycheck from them. You may feel that is acceptable, but your constitutional right to privacy is as sacred as your right to bear arms. Do you think the public would stand for an employer telling them they couldn't own a gun? When companies use shared databases to cross-check a person's background, credit rating, etc, there is an awful lot of of information that is shared without a person's knowledge or informed consent. The vast majority of people don't understand that and even people who do understand that if you want a job, a loan, a credit card, insurance, etc, you have better give consent, whether you like it or not. There is no balance in favor of the individual, only the corporation/shareholder. Your individual freedom is just as compromised by a corporation selling your information, and if an individual is so willing to give up those rights, it's their decision, but the threat is just as great, voluntary or otherwise.

As I said previously, people should be equally concerned and not just brush of the commercial threats as "oh well" that's just the way it is. It shouldn't be that way and doesn't have to be that way.

[SubGod22]

Personally, I don't care what the job market is, I'd never accept a position with a company that demanded access to any of my personal social media pages or anything of that nature. They can monitor the computer I work from all they want, but outside of work, they've got nothing. If they want more, they can hire someone else. I'm fine with that. The simple fact is, you don't have to accept a job like that. Some choose to because they feel the job is more important. That's on them.

And to do a credit check, don't they have to have your consent? I know I've been asked for my permission a number of times for that and I grant it if I believe it's important enough for what I'm doing. But this just goes more into people need to read what they sign.

If corporations go beyond what they've been authorized to do, there are legal protections to individuals. Most companies that may do these sort of things cover themselves and put it into the contracts or whatever that people agree to. Yes, there's a bunch of jibberish in those things that people don't understand and so they don't read it, but that still falls on the individual.

It's no secret that I'm a big proponent of smaller government, but I'm also a big proponent of individual responsibility. If you're not going to take the time to read what you authorize, you really don't have much of a case when you allow a company to do something that you don't like.

[Kung Wu]

An actual, honest take on the number of problems would be concerned with the number of times American information was viewed, rather than the broad definition being used there. Or would look at it in terms of the percentage of total searches that were run, so that it was put in context. But we all know there isn't any interest in honest discussion here.

I'm interested in honest discussion. The problem isn't about viewing data in transit. It's about the ability to view data that can easily be retrieved from storage. Long ... term ... storage.

[Kung Wu]

Many businesses take the stand, whether intended or not, that you have no rights to privacy as long as you draw a paycheck from them. You may feel that is acceptable, but your constitutional right to privacy is as sacred as your right to bear arms.

Hmm, maybe we need to first agree on what "privacy" is? Posting things on social media site is by definition of the term and purpose of the site itself, NOT private. Are you arguing that things you post on a social media site is private?

Do you think the public would stand for an employer telling them they couldn't own a gun? When companies use shared databases to cross-check a person's background, credit rating, etc, there is an awful lot of of information that is shared without a person's knowledge or informed consent. The vast majority of people don't understand that and even people who do understand that if you want a job, a loan, a credit card, insurance, etc, you have better give consent, whether you like it or not. There is no balance in favor of the individual, only the corporation/shareholder. Your individual freedom is just as compromised by a corporation selling your information, and if an individual is so willing to give up those rights, it's their decision, but the threat is just as great, voluntary or otherwise.

I just can't help but to point out that you are mashing up two very different problems:

Corporations are aggregating information about individuals at an alarming pace and in alarming ways. That's a problem. But it really doesn't have much to do with individual freedoms. It has to do with personal information being aggregated.

Governments are passing laws at an alarming rate that are eroding away individual freedoms. That's an even bigger problem. But it really doesn't have anything to do with corporations aggregating public information (and more rarely some private information).

As I said previously, people should be equally concerned and not just brush of the commercial threats as "oh well" that's just the way it is. It shouldn't be that way and doesn't have to be that way.

Yes, people should take proactive ownership of protecting their information.

Yes, people should begin the process of overhauling their government that has eaten away at their individual freedoms.

Two separate topics. The latter being much more heinous then the former. But the former being problematic because it could result in the latter. In both situations it's ultimately the government that denies your individual freedoms. The corporation just helps the government make the case by supplying the aggregated data, when the government sees fit to pursue you.

[SubGod22]

NSA collected thousands of emails from Americans, rebuked by court

[Rlh04d]

It is not in you discussing the fact that you have a clearance, it is discussing that you work in intelligence that is a red flag. Being in intelligence you know how easy it is for you to be identified without even the owners of the board knowing. Intelligence workers would generally leave this thread alone. You jumped in head first. Once again, that is the red flag.

Yet again, you're not the expert you think you are. My resume is pretty detailed about what I do, just not who I do it to and other factors that ARE classified. Nothing in this thread even comes close to identifying what I actually do -- it's simply not needed for this topic. You can identify yourself as working in intel -- you cannot identify someone else.

In fact, considering your self-identification as formerly working in intelligence, and the fact that your commitment to protecting classified material is life-long, everything you're saying would apply just as much to you. Which didn't stop you from jumping in head first.

Quite frankly, considering that, your implication that you were involved in domestic spying in the 1980s and routinely broke laws at the orders of your superiors could potentially be a leak of classified material, if true. That would depend on whether the information had been declassified or not. More likely, and what I'm going to assume is the case, you're lying to buoy the weakness of your "expertise."

I just did it back in the Reagan era ... We Never listened domestically, we obeyed every law, and we liked using the IRS to harass people with different ideologies. It was all good!

[Rlh04d]

NSA collected thousands of emails from Americans, rebuked by court

The NSA reported the problems it discovered in how it was gathering Internet communications to the court and shortly thereafter to Congress in the fall of 2011.

The NSA then worked with Congress and the court to correct the problem but ultimately decided it could not salvage the data it collected. It was purged in 2012.

The NSA claims the problem was technical in nature because the pulling of Internet traffic is automated.

The newly released court opinions revealed the court signed off on the new procedures, deeming them constitutionally acceptable.

Sometimes helpful to read the whole article.

[Rlh04d]

Back to this check-and-balances thing . . . has any of this been in front of the Supreme Court? If not, that process hasn't been completed yet.

You don't believe you can claim that checks and balances are taking place until something goes to the Supreme Court?

If that's the case, there is a hell of a lot of our nation's history that hasn't completed checks and balances yet.

The judicial branch handles the legal aspect of our checks and balances constitutionally. The Supreme Court has the ultimate say in that aspect, but their involvement is by no means necessary. I'm sure it'll eventually go to them, though. The problem will be, if the Supreme Court declares it Constitutional, that still won't mean anything to most people. Everyone is an expert on everything, even when it comes to thinking they know more than the SC.

[Rlh04d]

I'm interested in honest discussion. The problem isn't about viewing data in transit. It's about the ability to view data that can easily be retrieved from storage. Long ... term ... storage.

I know you are ;) I'd be glad to have a discussion with you by PM if you want. I'm not really interested in continuing to get childish "NSA janitor boy!" and similar attacks by participating in anymore real discussion here.

[MoValley John]

I don't think I ever claimed to be an expert. On more than one occasion, you have eluded to you being an expert. As for anything I may or may not leak, I do believe most of it has been declassified, a and if not declassified, far from relevant as it involved cold war issues.

As for what you put on your resume, that is your business. There are plenty of guidelines, you can find many resources on the internet. Generally, all that you should do is make sure o keep your security clearance current and note that you do have a security clearance. The level of clearance is generally discussed in the interview. The main benefit of employers hiring people with security clearances over people without, is there are no delays in starting work while waiting for a security clearance to be approved. I don't know why you think a clearance is a big deal, it really isn't, everyone I associated with in the military had clearances.

[Rlh04d]

I don't think I ever claimed to be an expert. On more than one occasion, you have eluded to you being an expert. As for anything I may or may not leak, I do believe most of it has been declassified, a and if not declassified, far from relevant as it involved cold war issues.

As for what you put on your resume, that is your business. There are plenty of guidelines, you can find many resources on the internet. Generally, all that you should do is make sure o keep your security clearance current and note that you do have a security clearance. The level of clearance is generally discussed in the interview. The main benefit of employers hiring people with security clearances over people without, is there are no delays in starting work while waiting for a security clearance to be approved. I don't know why you think a clearance is a big deal, it really isn't, everyone I associated with in the military had clearances.

You should really simply stop now. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's honestly getting embarrassing.

As for what I put on my resume, that is my business. However, it is also the business of the expert that I have to have it pre-cleared through, and the team of experts I have to have it finalized through. Just as it's my business what other people in my field put on their resume, because I'm one of the experts in that chain. As usual, you have no concept of what you're talking about.

In all the training I've taken recently, I don't remember anything about how you're simply supposed to assume something has been declassified after a certain number of years. I wasn't aware that "relevance" was a factor in the unauthorized disclosure of classified material, either. Weird -- you wouldn't think we'd have a system that allowed anyone to decide for themselves when the classified material they were entrusted with is no longer relevant to keeping classified.

It's pretty clear here that you held a Confidential level security clearance (the level that "everyone in the military" has) in the 80s and you are vastly exaggerating your knowledge of this subject because you don't want to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. Which is all well and good -- you'd hardly be the first person to misrepresent yourself on the internet to cover up a lack of knowledge. But when you start blatantly implying criminal actions by the intelligence community, in a way that if it WAS true the revelation of which would be a criminal action on your part, then you've gone beyond normal levels of internet bullshit. Either you're a liar or you're committing a crime.

It's time you stop.

[MoValley John]

You should really simply stop now. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's honestly getting embarrassing.

As for what I put on my resume, that is my business. However, it is also the business of the expert that I have to have it pre-cleared through, and the team of experts I have to have it finalized through. Just as it's my business what other people in my field put on their resume, because I'm one of the experts in that chain. As usual, you have no concept of what you're talking about.

In all the training I've taken recently, I don't remember anything about how you're simply supposed to assume something has been declassified after a certain number of years. I wasn't aware that "relevance" was a factor in the unauthorized disclosure of classified material, either. Weird -- you wouldn't think we'd have a system that allowed anyone to decide for themselves when the classified material they were entrusted with is no longer relevant to keeping classified.

It's pretty clear here that you held a Confidential level security clearance (the level that "everyone in the military" has) in the 80s and you are vastly exaggerating your knowledge of this subject because you don't want to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. Which is all well and good -- you'd hardly be the first person to misrepresent yourself on the internet to cover up a lack of knowledge. But when you start blatantly implying criminal actions by the intelligence community, in a way that if it WAS true the revelation of which would be a criminal action on your part, then you've gone beyond normal levels of internet bullshit. Either you're a liar or you're committing a crime.

It's time you stop.

Funny.

Now you're an expert and official spokesmen. Next week should we call you Mr. Senator? Or are you an aide to Obama?

[Rlh04d]

Funny.

Now you're an expert and official spokesmen. Next week should we call you Mr. Senator? Or are you an aide to Obama?

I speak for no one but myself. Never once implied otherwise. That's a really laughable attempt at a response, though. I haven't said one thing here that isn't personal opinion, on my approved resume, or echoing what various people who are spokesmen have already publicly said.

You're really embarrassing yourself. You keep rejecting the common sense reaction to how badly you've handled this, which is giving up. So if you won't accept it, which is it: liar or criminal?

There's nothing funny about this. I had no interest in having anything but an intelligent, adult discussion. You've taken it in this direction. Now answer my question or go away. You actually don't have to get the last word in, although I'm sure that won't stop you from degenerating into further personal attacks. Go with "janitor boy" -- I like that one.