[speechlesstx]

Yes I believe I did several times and it doesn't seem to have raised an eyebrow here. Now the White House is changing another long-standing policy that threatens your privacy. Kudos to the ACLU for the heads up...

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union submitted comments today to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) opposing its recent proposal to reverse current federal policy and allow the use of web tracking technologies, like cookies, on federal government websites. Cookies can be used to track an Internet user’s every click and are often linked across multiple websites; they frequently identify particular people.

Since 2000, it has been the policy of the federal government not to use such technology. But the OMB is now seeking to change that policy and is considering the use of cookies for tracking web visitors across multiple sessions and storing their unique preferences and surfing habits. Though this is a major shift in policy, the announcement of this program consists of only a single page from the federal register that contains almost no detail.

“This is a sea change in government privacy policy,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Without explaining this reversal of policy, the OMB is seeking to allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website. Until the OMB answers the multitude of questions surrounding this policy shift, we will continue to raise our strenuous objections.”

The use of cookies allows a website to differentiate between users and build a database of each user’s viewing habits and the information they share with the site. Since web surfers frequently share information like their name or email address (if they’ve signed up for a service) or search request terms, the use of cookies frequently allows a user’s identity and web surfing habits to be linked. In addition, websites can allow third parties, such as advertisers, to also place cookies on a user’s computer.

“Americans rely on the information from the federal government to research politics, medical issues and legal requirements. The OMB is now asking to retain the personal and identifiable information we leave behind,” said Christopher Calabrese, Counsel for the ACLU Technology and Liberty Project. “No American should have to sacrifice privacy or risk surveillance in order to access free government information. No policy change should be adopted without wide ranging debate including information on the restrictions and uses of cookies as well as impact on privacy.”

Since 2000, that would be the 8 years of the Bush administration, the Feds have made it a policy not to track your web usage. The OMB of Obama's White House wants to change that. He has also continued the warrantless wiretap program and has asked for snitches on such un-American activities as exercising your right to free speech. Add his Health care plan that DOES include cash incentives for doctors to offer end of life counseling to seniors, that DOES want to coach you on how to raise your kids and DOES include provisions for real-time access to your bank accounts and you have a pattern of an overly invasive government.

Are you a little bit troubled yet?

[tomder55]

and has asked for snitches on such un-American activities as exercising your right to free speech.

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!" (Evita )

[excon]

Are you a little bit troubled yet?

Hello Steve:

Your outrage is too little and too late... I don't understand why you think tracking our cookies should be stopped, when you apparently don't mind that the government actually READS every single EMAIL that you and I, and everybody else sends...

excon

[speechlesstx]

Ex, I have so many cookies tracked already it would make your head spin. What's notable here is it's the ACLU raising the red flag and other than that, all those people that whined about Bush spying on us and eroding our liberties have been pretty darn quiet lately...

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

I will grant you that the NSA tracks every internet message, every cell phone call, and every land-line call made in the USA, and most of the world.

But do you think that someone actually sits there and reads them?

Who's the poor schmuck getting paid government-minimum to do that job... reading poorly parsed, badly-spelled internet shorthand written by a bunch of pre-teens about the latest episode of their favorite reality TV show, stupid love e-mails by teenagers, tweets by soccer moms about their kids' karate practice, "secret" e-mails by co-workers about where they are going to shack up during lunch hour, etc.

Do you really think that there's someone there reading all that crap?

Here's how it works:

There is a program that is run off a super-computer (or a bunch of them) that scans all the electronic traffic. It hunts for certain key words.

If it finds those key words, copies of those electronic communications are sent to a SECOND computer program which scans the communication more thoroughly, looking for context. It then rejects most of those, and flags the ones that need human interpretation. That's maybe 1/100th of 1% of all electronic communications... maybe... if the system is dumber than I think it is. The real number is probably MUCH smaller than that.

So yes, they have access to everything. But they aren't seeing 99.99999999% of it.

So unless there's something in your e-mails that you think is going to catch their attention, why do you care? Why does it bother you?

And if this is such a huge issue for you, why are you so interested in granting the government MORE power to do this sort of thing by supporting the health care bill, which gives the government LEGAL access to your financial records and medical records.

Elliot

[spitvenom]

Here is the truth about your bank accounts.

It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

[speechlesstx]

It just keeps getting better. Obama's 'Diversity Czar' wants private broadcasting entities to pay a sum equal to their total operating costs to fund public broadcasting.

(CNSNews.com) - Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do...

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”

Not only does he want the networks to pay for public broadcasting he wants to regulate the content of what these private companies would be forced to fund.

Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities.

“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.

The problem of course is poor liberals have been forced off the air, and since the Air Americas can't compete in the marketplace (of ideas or otherwise) it's up to the feds to make sure the liberal voice is heard to overcome what Dingy Harry calls “evil-mongers.” That's one way to back door a fairness doctrine and "level the playing field" I suppose.

Oh and don't forget, Obama wants his opponents to sit down and shut up also. He's not interested in what they have to say... way too much diversity in that.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” -Barack Obama

Ah, change we can believe in...

[excon]

So unless there's something in your e-mails that you think is going to catch their attention, why do you care? Why does it bother you?

Hello again, El:

Ahhhh, the old right wing saw about if you have nothing to hide, why would you care if the government tromps through your stuff??

Only this thread is about how much you guys distrust the government... But, the truth is, you trust the COP part of the government... You don't trust the rest... I don't know how your can parse it... Fact is, you can't, and you want it BOTH ways, don't you?

Sorry, Dude.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Here is the truth about your bank accounts.

It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Nobody said that the government would be in charge of your bank accounts.

What we said, and what the House Bill SPECIFICALLY CALLS FOR, is that the government will have access to your account INFORMATION. They will be able to peek and see how much money you have, how much debt you have, and what your "financial responsibility" is. Whether you wish them to have that information or not.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Ahhhh, the old right wing saw about if you have nothing to hide, why would you care if the government tromps through your stuff???

Only this thread is about how much you guys distrust the government.... But, the truth is, you trust the COP part of the government... You don't trust the rest... I dunno how your can parse it... Fact is, you can't, and you want it BOTH ways, don't you?

Sorry, Dude.

excon

You didn't address any of my other points... like the idea that if you are afraid of the government having your information, why would you want to give them MORE of it?

Seems to me that you DISTRUST the cop part of the government, but completely trust the rest of it. I don't see how YOU can have it both ways.

But you certainly try.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Like you said, ex, we're both troubled by different aspects of government intrusion. You don't like them scanning emails and I don't like them asking for people to snitch on me for saying whatever the heck I want to say or be involved in parenting.

The main point of this post though is the hypocritical silence by all those who slammed Bush for invading their privacy and eroding their rights. Where are they now?

[spitvenom]

ET lets just say that they are going to look at your bank account info. What are they going to do with the information? Are they going to steal it? Blackmail you if you have a lot of debt?

[N0help4u]

I know the National Guard has an ad on Monster.com for people to help with the Interment camp round ups.

[ETWolverine]

ET lets just say that they are going to look at your bank account info. What are they going to do with the information? Are they going to steal it? Blackmail you if you have a lot of debt?

I don't know... what's the CIA going to do with your e-mails? Excon seems pretty excersized about it though.

Here's what they can do:

Certain politicians have a history of using government agencies, like the IRS or the SEC to mess with their political opponents. If they didn't like someone politically, they would use their influence to have the IRS or the SEC to harrass those political opponents with frivolous investigations or audits. This has been documented in several cases, and it still goes on behind closed doors. We know that.

If those same politicians were to have access to the MEDICAL RECORDS of their political opponents, or were able to influence the decision-making-bodies within the health care system, the implications are frightening. They could...

- make some very personal information public... purely accidentally of course. How would you feel if your political opponent made your erectile dysfunction problems public? (SPEAKING PURELY HYPOTHETICLY... I am not making any comments about you in specific spitvenom. This is a hypothetical example.)

- influence decisions about the health care of family members of political opponents... "If you oppose me, I'll make sure your wife doesn't get the cancer treatment she needs."

I've got a lot more of a problem with petty, tin-plated dictators in the House and Senate having access to that kind of influence over medical care and personal information than I have with the CIA or the NSA having access to this post.

There are two things we know about our government.

1) Our intelligence professionals know how to keep information out of the public eye.
2) Our elected officials DON'T.

And that is why I'm MUCH more worried about the government getting access to health care records and decision making than I am about the CIA reading my e-mails.

Elliot

[spitvenom]

ET I have always been under the assumption they could access our records anytime they want. Sure there are laws against that but if I had some pull in the government I could get any information about anyone I wanted right now. Do you really think they need this health care bill to do that? Cause I don't.

[N0help4u]

I have to agree with you on that point spitvenom. They have all our information in all our little plastic cards BUT the health care stuff is going to make it worse as well as every other little government control thing they do on the general public.

[asking]

- influence decisions about the health care of family members of political opponents... "If you oppose me, I'll make sure your wife doesn't get the cancer treatment she needs."

... or "your husband doesn't get treated for his erectile disfunction." (Then the congresswoman would be a up a creek.)

But, seriously, if this was going to happen, we'd have seen it in veterans who get government run health services from the VA; in medicare patients, whose care is paid for by the government already; and, OF COURSE, among the members of Congress themselves, who have the best health coverage in the world, covered by, you guessed it, the U.S. government.

I'll take what their having.

[excon]

I dunno... what's the CIA going to do with your e-mails? Excon seems pretty excersized about it though.

Hello El:

Yes, I am, as any red blooded American should be...

But, let's look a little further into your position... You evidently DON'T mind the CIA gathering ALL of your correspondence, but you're bummed that Obama wants people to snitch...

In fact, that is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said... And, you've said plenty.

Go ahead. I want you to tell me how it's fine for the government to READ your email, but what Obama wants to do is bad...

Now, I know you'll say, the CIA doesn't actually read 'em, therefore it's OK... Stupid, stupid, stupid...

excon

[ETWolverine]

ET I have always been under the assumption they could access our records anytime they want. Sure there are laws against that but if I had some pull in the government I could get any information about anyone I wanted right now. Do you really think they need this health care bill to do that? Cause I don't.

1) As far as I know, no Senator of Congressman actually has access to your records. The CIA and FBI do, but not the elected officials. And like I said, the intelligence agencies know how to keep their mouths shut.

2) Let's assume that elected officials DO have that ability. Do you think we should legalize it for them? Just because they could do it now if they wanted by breaking the law, do you believe that we should give them the legal authority to do so, so that they would no longer be breaking the law if they did it? Should we give them the authority to do it with IMPUNITY?

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

I'll take what their having.

Yeah, but they won't take what they're trying to force on us. That's about all that needs to be said about it.