Senate has put off til January the re-authoauthorization on the so-called Protect America Act which basically opened up for the government virtually every international telephone call or email by anyone in this country to or from someone overseas (the PAA was signed last August 5th and expires the beginning of Febuary ’08). The administration and its supporters in the Senate also want to grant full retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that violated the old FISA law and gave government agents virtually unlimited access to subscriber phone data without any court orders or supervision.
Best thing that could happen would be for the PAA to simply expire, but the administration will do everything it can to avoid that. A handful of Senatorts – e.g., Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, et al. – are waging a courageous fight to limit government surveillance and telecom immunity.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
A huge thumbs up to Ted Nugent and his recent article, “I Fell Like Writing Another Gun Celebration Column.”
In the town of Colorado Springs, CO, a young woman used her concealed weapon to protect herself, and the people around her during a church gathering this week. She used her gun to defend herself, her congregation, and her freedom. She should be commended for taking the high road of defense instead of cowering in the corner and taking what the gunman was giving to her and the congregation.
Ted Nugent should also be commended for taking the initiative of writing such a strong and moving article.
“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”
For more:
http://lucy-chronicles.livejournal.com/37883.html
In the town of Colorado Springs, CO, a young woman used her concealed weapon to protect herself, and the people around her during a church gathering this week. She used her gun to defend herself, her congregation, and her freedom. She should be commended for taking the high road of defense instead of cowering in the corner and taking what the gunman was giving to her and the congregation.
Ted Nugent should also be commended for taking the initiative of writing such a strong and moving article.
“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”
For more:
http://lucy-chronicles.livejournal.com/37883.html
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Privacy Protection During the Holidays
With the holiday season upon us, with its attendant shopping, this is a good time to be aware of several small, but important steps we can take to help protect our privacy and avoid identity theft.
For example, many retailers ask for your zip code, telephone number, or address when making a purchase or exchange. It is never necessary to give out this information, and it is better if you don’t.
Also, when shopping, notice that the store keeps a copy of your receipt, and you are given a copy. While most stores comply with the law and do not print your full credit card number on the receipt, some still (and inappropriately) have the complete credit card number on the receipt. Make sure that only the last four digits are visible on their (and your) copy of the receipt.
Finally, when making internet purchases, only do so from a “secured” website. Such sites are considered more secure because they have specific firewalls installed that make it more difficult for hackers to access your information. While nothing is completely “hacker-proof,” this is at least one good way to ensure you have taken steps to protect yourself from having your information stolen.
For more information, see:
http://www.scambusters.org/CreditCardFraud.html
For example, many retailers ask for your zip code, telephone number, or address when making a purchase or exchange. It is never necessary to give out this information, and it is better if you don’t.
Also, when shopping, notice that the store keeps a copy of your receipt, and you are given a copy. While most stores comply with the law and do not print your full credit card number on the receipt, some still (and inappropriately) have the complete credit card number on the receipt. Make sure that only the last four digits are visible on their (and your) copy of the receipt.
Finally, when making internet purchases, only do so from a “secured” website. Such sites are considered more secure because they have specific firewalls installed that make it more difficult for hackers to access your information. While nothing is completely “hacker-proof,” this is at least one good way to ensure you have taken steps to protect yourself from having your information stolen.
For more information, see:
http://www.scambusters.org/CreditCardFraud.html
Friday, November 30, 2007
Facebook and its Lack of Privacy
In the world of high technology and convenience, we sometimes need to be reminded that there is a cost associated with having both. And companies need to be reminded to do their homework before putting things out into the public spectrum. The users and managers of Facebook are facing such difficulties.
Facebook is a free site that receives the majority of its funding through advertisers and contributions; most people would likely consider that this would extend to banner ads, side page ads, and the occasional pop-ups. However, internet advertising agencies are going beyond these reasonable efforts; and this is what is especially troubling. The program is called “Beacon” and the sole purpose is to memorize your purchases. While this may be considered an appropriate tool for internet stores to employ in order to track purchases and make suggestions to you based on your purchase upon checkout, it would seem highly problematic when employed in an endeavor such as Facebook. The version installed on Facebook essentially does the same thing, except this time, everyone one of your “friends” will also be allowed to view your purchase history.
Originally, the tracking part of the program would be able to be turned off by its users. The problem is that once implemented on Facebook, “Beacon” has no way of turning off - - and no option for users to have the ability to turn it off, with or without permission.
This might not seem like a big deal in hind sight, but it is a slippery slope, and may very well – if continued – raise serious privacy concerns; even perhaps involving Fourth Amendment issues. For Facebook and its creator, Matt Zuckerberg, this is not the first time they have been in the hot seat this year when it comes to privacy rights.
This brings us back to the Big Brother issue our country is facing today. How much imposition is too much imposition? What kind of rights are we going to have left if we allow the government, businesses, and other entities to continue to chip away at our privacy – something Ayn Rand correctly identified as the very foundation of civilization? It is important that we, as citizens, educate ourselves about the privacy underpinings in the Bill of Rights, and ensure that we promote and vote for leaders of this country who will also keep our rights in the highest regard – and support only those businesses that commit themselves to doing likewise.
Facebook is a free site that receives the majority of its funding through advertisers and contributions; most people would likely consider that this would extend to banner ads, side page ads, and the occasional pop-ups. However, internet advertising agencies are going beyond these reasonable efforts; and this is what is especially troubling. The program is called “Beacon” and the sole purpose is to memorize your purchases. While this may be considered an appropriate tool for internet stores to employ in order to track purchases and make suggestions to you based on your purchase upon checkout, it would seem highly problematic when employed in an endeavor such as Facebook. The version installed on Facebook essentially does the same thing, except this time, everyone one of your “friends” will also be allowed to view your purchase history.
Originally, the tracking part of the program would be able to be turned off by its users. The problem is that once implemented on Facebook, “Beacon” has no way of turning off - - and no option for users to have the ability to turn it off, with or without permission.
This might not seem like a big deal in hind sight, but it is a slippery slope, and may very well – if continued – raise serious privacy concerns; even perhaps involving Fourth Amendment issues. For Facebook and its creator, Matt Zuckerberg, this is not the first time they have been in the hot seat this year when it comes to privacy rights.
This brings us back to the Big Brother issue our country is facing today. How much imposition is too much imposition? What kind of rights are we going to have left if we allow the government, businesses, and other entities to continue to chip away at our privacy – something Ayn Rand correctly identified as the very foundation of civilization? It is important that we, as citizens, educate ourselves about the privacy underpinings in the Bill of Rights, and ensure that we promote and vote for leaders of this country who will also keep our rights in the highest regard – and support only those businesses that commit themselves to doing likewise.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Cry Me a River.
Last Sunday, in an interview with Chris Wallace, Senator and presidential candidate Fred Thompson complained that Fox News was portraying him in a negative light and thereby hurting his campaign. Welcome to the real world, Senator!
Probably the best thing Senator Thompson could do would be to quit whining, start showing some fire in the belly, and put forward specific and comprehensive ideas for the presidency he covets. (Of course, any campaign that has to spend its time telling people “I’m not lazy,” is in trouble anyway.)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/thompson-charges-fox-news-is-biased-against-his-campaign-2007-11-25.html
Probably the best thing Senator Thompson could do would be to quit whining, start showing some fire in the belly, and put forward specific and comprehensive ideas for the presidency he covets. (Of course, any campaign that has to spend its time telling people “I’m not lazy,” is in trouble anyway.)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/thompson-charges-fox-news-is-biased-against-his-campaign-2007-11-25.html
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Illegal Search & Seizure
The Bush Administration considers the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement a suggestion rather than a directive when it comes to electronically eavesdropping on citizens' phone calls or reading our e-mails. Now, the Boston Police Department is launching a program to rifle through citizens' homes in high-crime neighborhoods looking for firearms in kids' rooms, without first securing warrants.
The police, who will be operating in groups of three or four, promise to first ask the permission of adults before conducting their searches. They also promise not to charge anyone with offenses for anything they find (except "large" quantities of illegal drugs) unless they later link the firearm(s) to crimes.
People who consent to such searches, which will be carried out without any suspicion there are illegal firearms or anything else illegal in the houses, are either dangerously naïve or crazy. If people aren't wise enough to realize the police will - at a bare minimum - keep a record or write a report of what they find, then citizens have become even more gullible post-911 than I thought.
If parents are so intimidated by their kids that they cannot themselves know or find out if their kids have guns in the house, and have to permit a warrantless police search of their homes, then their fitness as parents is seriously in question.
Such actions as these in Boston further the false notion that the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the 2d Amendment are so unimportant that its protections is not worthy of Fourth Amendment consideraton.
The police, who will be operating in groups of three or four, promise to first ask the permission of adults before conducting their searches. They also promise not to charge anyone with offenses for anything they find (except "large" quantities of illegal drugs) unless they later link the firearm(s) to crimes.
People who consent to such searches, which will be carried out without any suspicion there are illegal firearms or anything else illegal in the houses, are either dangerously naïve or crazy. If people aren't wise enough to realize the police will - at a bare minimum - keep a record or write a report of what they find, then citizens have become even more gullible post-911 than I thought.
If parents are so intimidated by their kids that they cannot themselves know or find out if their kids have guns in the house, and have to permit a warrantless police search of their homes, then their fitness as parents is seriously in question.
Such actions as these in Boston further the false notion that the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the 2d Amendment are so unimportant that its protections is not worthy of Fourth Amendment consideraton.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Government as Gangsters...
In Hollywood gangster movies, the mob boss would pressure victims to do their bidding by letting them know 'there's an easy way and a hard way to do this, but either way you're going to do what we want.' In the real world of modern America, this is more often than not the preferred method employed not by gangsters but by the government. Rarely, however are government officials as blatant about it as State’s Attorney Glenn F. Ivey at a news conference yesterday in Upper Marlboro, MD: ‘We can do this the easy way or the hard way, but it’s got to get done. I’m willing to move forward with legal action.’
The state is demanding that each student in Prince George, BC has the state-required Chicken Pox and Hepatitis B vaccinations by the September 20th deadline. More than 2,300 students that have not been immunized have been banned from attending school, and parents of the students could face fine of up to $50 a day and up to 10 days in jail.
Some parents would like their children treated homeopathically and others do not believe in giving immunizations of any kind. While this might not be considered the “norm,” what happened to a parent’s right to choose?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111301408.html?sub=AR
The state is demanding that each student in Prince George, BC has the state-required Chicken Pox and Hepatitis B vaccinations by the September 20th deadline. More than 2,300 students that have not been immunized have been banned from attending school, and parents of the students could face fine of up to $50 a day and up to 10 days in jail.
Some parents would like their children treated homeopathically and others do not believe in giving immunizations of any kind. While this might not be considered the “norm,” what happened to a parent’s right to choose?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111301408.html?sub=AR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
