Holy Schnikes - the Obama refrain

[MickerHawk]

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.”

So, everything the left had to imagine about what Bush&Co. could be doing with library records and phone call info, the OMB is seeking to do with the use of tracking cookies of everyone who enters a gov website.

Sha-Zam, folks. All those fierce imaginings of the Patriot Act and Bush, well, they were just that. Here's the real deal, and you guys will just yawn about it.

[Sambud]

There's no question this administration is becoming more ominous by the day.

[TallGrass]

There's no question this administration is becoming more ominous by the day.

What did you expect? Change?

[Mr. Hawk]

There's no question this administration is becoming more ominous by the day.

What did you expect? Change?Sal did.

[MickerHawk]

Hasn't Zaph complained about the Patriot Act? I know that our "independents" have.

[TallGrass]

There's no question this administration is becoming more ominous by the day.

What did you expect? Change?Sal did.

Well, he at least looks different. It's a start.

[Gushawk]

I can't entirely articulate why, butinternet habits and usage "feel different" than a phone call in terms of expectation of privacy, at least for me personally.

[MickerHawk]

I can't entirely articulate why, butinternet habits and usage "feel different" than a phone call in terms of expectation of privacy, at least for me personally.

You mean phone call records of those calling Al Qaeda numbers, right?

[RiotFan]

I can't entirely articulate why, butinternet habits and usage "feel different" than a phone call in terms of expectation of privacy, at least for me personally.

This idiocy from you must be intentional (not just this example), or I've completely mistaken you as an intelligient poster over the years.

[ISUFan98]

I can't entirely articulate why, butinternet habits and usage "feel different" than a phone call in terms of expectation of privacy, at least for me personally.

No wai.

[StinkyMcFadden]

I can't entirely articulate why, butinternet habits and usage "feel different" than a phone call in terms of expectation of privacy, at least for me personally.

The dumbification of America.

[Gushawk]

I can't entirely articulate why, butinternet habits and usage "feel different" than a phone call in terms of expectation of privacy, at least for me personally.

You mean phone call records of those calling Al Qaeda numbers, right?

LMAO. Do some googling and reading, Mick.

[Gushawk]

I can't entirely articulate why, butinternet habits and usage "feel different" than a phone call in terms of expectation of privacy, at least for me personally.

This idiocy from you must be intentional (not just this example), or I've completely mistaken you as an intelligient poster over the years.

Geez, I even admitted that I couldn't really articulate why. It subjectively "feels different" to me. I've just never felt a strong sense of trust in the privacy of computer media. When I want to communicate about something sensitive at work, I'm more comfortable using the phone than using e-mail. I'd much rather buy porn than scour the internet for it, but perhaps if I was a volume consumer I'd feel differently. None of that means that this is okay or necessarily less egregious than "warrantless wiretapping."

[Rolo Tomassi]

I can't entirely articulate why, butinternet habits and usage "feel different" than a phone call in terms of expectation of privacy, at least for me personally.

This idiocy from you must be intentional (not just this example), or I've completely mistaken you as an intelligient poster over the years.

Geez, I even admitted that I couldn't really articulate why. It subjectively "feels different" to me. I've just never felt a strong sense of trust in the privacy of computer media. When I want to communicate about something sensitive at work, I'm more comfortable using the phone than using e-mail. I'd much rather buy porn than scour the internet for it, but perhaps if I was a volume consumer I'd feel differently. None of that means that this is okay or necessarily less egregious than "warrantless wiretapping."

So you're saying this is different. And the fact that it's the Obama Administration has nothing to do with it. Got it.

[Rolo Tomassi]

There's no question this administration is becoming more ominous by the day.

What did you expect? Change?Sal did.

Well actually, so did I. I fully expected things to change for the worse.

[newsbreaker]

IIRC, there is some very loosely related precedence for this kind of "search." I don't agree with it, but I think I can hypothetically see the argument.

[Gushawk]

This idiocy from you must be intentional (not just this example), or I've completely mistaken you as an intelligient poster over the years.

Geez, I even admitted that I couldn't really articulate why. It subjectively "feels different" to me. I've just never felt a strong sense of trust in the privacy of computer media. When I want to communicate about something sensitive at work, I'm more comfortable using the phone than using e-mail. I'd much rather buy porn than scour the internet for it, but perhaps if I was a volume consumer I'd feel differently. None of that means that this is okay or necessarily less egregious than "warrantless wiretapping."

So you're saying this is different. And the fact that it's the Obama Administration has nothing to do with it. Got it.

A subjective perception of difference does not = "good," "right," or "acceptable."

We're really talking about 3 things here: phone calls; e-mails; and web activity. And I'd probably say that my personal expectation of privacy in them goes in that order from highest to lowest. That doesn't mean other people don't have differing perceptions, which may be valid and reasonable.

[MickerHawk]

Geez, I even admitted that I couldn't really articulate why. It subjectively "feels different" to me. I've just never felt a strong sense of trust in the privacy of computer media. When I want to communicate about something sensitive at work, I'm more comfortable using the phone than using e-mail. I'd much rather buy porn than scour the internet for it, but perhaps if I was a volume consumer I'd feel differently. None of that means that this is okay or necessarily less egregious than "warrantless wiretapping."

So you're saying this is different. And the fact that it's the Obama Administration has nothing to do with it. Got it.

A subjective perception of difference does not = "good," "right," or "acceptable."

We're really talking about 3 things here: phone calls; e-mails; and web activity. And I'd probably say that my personal expectation of privacy in them goes in that order from highest to lowest. That doesn't mean other people don't have differing perceptions, which may be valid and reasonable.

Bump. That's good stuff.


http://hawkeyelounge.com/showthread.php?t=60886

[jeffcudd]

Geez, I even admitted that I couldn't really articulate why. It subjectively "feels different" to me. I've just never felt a strong sense of trust in the privacy of computer media. When I want to communicate about something sensitive at work, I'm more comfortable using the phone than using e-mail. I'd much rather buy porn than scour the internet for it, but perhaps if I was a volume consumer I'd feel differently. None of that means that this is okay or necessarily less egregious than "warrantless wiretapping."

So you're saying this is different. And the fact that it's the Obama Administration has nothing to do with it. Got it.

A subjective perception of difference does not = "good," "right," or "acceptable."

We're really talking about 3 things here: phone calls; e-mails; and web activity. And I'd probably say that my personal expectation of privacy in them goes in that order from highest to lowest. That doesn't mean other people don't have differing perceptions, which may be valid and reasonable.

I'm quite certain you don't care what I think, but it's posts like these demonstrating your - and by extension, other Dems on the board - hypocrisy that drives some of us crazy. You can't even call out this administration when they seek to grossly infringe on your privacy. There's nobody even close to this partison on the right on these boards as evidenced by what you just demonstrated.

[lilzaphod]

Hasn't Zaph complained about the Patriot Act? I know that our "independents" have.

I'm also on record as saying that Obama and Bush are virtual the same in the regards. In many ways, Obama is worse.

So either pay attention, or kindly go fuck yourself. In any event, dig somewhere else for hypocrisy on this issue. My well is dry.

[lilzaphod]

Also - the fact that you yawned about the Patriot act and are fucking overwhelemed at browser cookies is pretty telling in itself.

This is just a game to you, Micker. And your tinfoil hat only manages to reflect from the left side of the spectrum...

[MickerHawk]

Hasn't Zaph complained about the Patriot Act? I know that our "independents" have.

I'm also on record as saying that Obama and Bush are virtual the same in the regards. In many ways, Obama is worse.


I realize that now, but didn't back when we had this thread originally.

[lilzaphod]

Commencing to go fuck myself. I wasn't paying attention to the date of this thread. :)

[MickerHawk]

Commencing to go fuck myself. I wasn't paying attention to the date of this thread. :)

I knew that. :cool: