President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The Sushi Hunter]

When these companies say they protect your personal information, I laugh. Between hackers, virus' and then when the government want's the information, and lets not forget about when Apple said that they don't track iphone movement and then they came out and said that they did, and then they said you can turn off the function and then they came out and said it wasn't turning off like they thought. Funny because they never came out and said it was happening before hand, only addressing the issue after it was proven that their devices where actually doing this.

[slucero]

When these companies say they protect your personal information, I laugh. Between hackers, virus' and then when the government want's the information, and lets not forget about when Apple said that they don't track iphone movement and then they came out and said that they did, and then they said you can turn off the function and then they came out and said it wasn't turning off like they thought. Funny because they never came out and said it was happening before hand, only addressing the issue after it was proven that their devices where actually doing this.

Not disagreeing with you... but you need to make up your mind...

First you claim the terms and conditions indemnifies & exempts the company/government - that's a legal argument.

If you stick with that premise.. then the privacy policy is also legally binding.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Well there are variables involved that determines which way they go in regards to this. I've worked in large companies in the past where you use their computer system that is in the workplace, they consider what you do as their property and can do whatever they wish with it. In regards to Google, Facebook, etc. the government can pressure them into releasing info. It's sort of like recently I was reading where a facebook account of a kid who died, the parents wanted to get the password so they could remove it, but Facebook wouldn't give them the password so the parents could remove it. The guy is dead, but Facebook is basically keeping it active by "assuming" control over the account since the kid is dead and can't control the account any longer.

This isn't a new issue with these internet companies. I've read about numerious issues about companies doing stuff with people's personal information.

[Memorex]

It gets better every day!

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

This is the same as walking into my house and reading personal letters I have written without permission. I can't believe the insanity that is occurring.

Well the difference is, personal letters written in your house have not been transmitted through various companies equipment and telecommunications systems. When you signed up for the Google Account, Facebook Account, etc, did you read the fine print when you "aggreed to the terms" or did you just click on it and forget it? Sort of like when an employee uses the work computer to do personal things. It's the company's equipment and they can and DO look at everything employees do on the internet at work. Wonder how some people get caught doing crimes? Because they go on line and talk about it or even show an elevated interest in specifics about a crime.

Anything and everything you do on line becomes the property of the carrier/provider. And that's where the government comes in. The government then can gather that information through the carrier/provider. Remove the carreir/provider and the government has no way of getting your information.

That's why I have my own domain name for my email. No gmail or yahoo for me - except for some throw-away accounts.

[slucero]

Well there are variables involved that determines which way they go in regards to this. I've worked in large companies in the past where you use their computer system that is in the workplace, they consider what you do as their property and can do whatever they wish with it. In regards to Google, Facebook, etc. the government can pressure them into releasing info. It's sort of like recently I was reading where a facebook account of a kid who died, the parents wanted to get the password so they could remove it, but Facebook wouldn't give them the password so the parents could remove it. The guy is dead, but Facebook is basically keeping it active by "assuming" control over the account since the kid is dead and can't control the account any longer.

This isn't a new issue with these internet companies. I've read about numerious issues about companies doing stuff with people's personal information.

Again you are not being clear.

Anything the employer/company/corporation owns, that you use during the course of the work you do for them, is their private property. Your relationship to the employer (as an employee) implies by default, that unless you specify otherwise, and they agree to it in writing... the totality (meaning everything) of what you produce as an employee is also the property of the employer. Inventions, emails..everything. I know this because I've written corporate policy regarding privacy for Fortune 500 companies.

Regarding the Facebook case you cite. You are again reversing your position from your previous post.

Facebook has an age limit of 13 years old.

• If the kid was under 13, Facebook rules would require they delete the account.
• If the kid is older, Facebook has no requirement to do so.

They also clearly state in their Terms and Conditions that the individuals privacy rights are not transferable. In the case you cite the kid must be older than 13, and Facebook has decided not to do the parents the courtesy of providing them the password.. because it would violate Facebook policy... and make them vulnerable to a lawsuit from those who would argue that ones privacy rights do not end with death.

You are confusing a moral obligation with a legal obligation.

Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

[The Sushi Hunter]

My opinion on it is, you use the internet, the information will be out there regardless of who says they will keep the information private. Simple as that. Disclose anything personal using the internet, that information will be out there. Privacy.....none.

[Behshad]

My opinion on it is, you use the internet, the information will be out there regardless of who says they will keep the information private. Simple as that. Disclose anything personal using the internet, that information will be out there. Privacy.....none.

[Memorex]

My opinion on it is, you use the internet, the information will be out there regardless of who says they will keep the information private. Simple as that. Disclose anything personal using the internet, that information will be out there. Privacy.....none.

Well it's nice that you roll over so easy. I completely disagree. Yes - it's out there. But it should only be reviewed after receiving a warrant. If i send a note to my mother, I don;t care how many companies it passes through, the federal government has no right to review that communication unless that show just cause via the warrant process, and even then, they shouldn't.

I bet you are all the same people that complained about the patriot act. I guess it sucks to track terrorists, but totally cool to invade the privacy of citizens.

That's cool though. Keep on keepin on.

[slucero]

My opinion on it is, you use the internet, the information will be out there regardless of who says they will keep the information private. Simple as that. Disclose anything personal using the internet, that information will be out there. Privacy.....none.

Like I said.. I don't disagree with you... how you state it is essentially "how it is"...

Where you are inconsistent is when you claim the terms and conditions mean a company can do what ever it wants.. yet you call out Facebook for following its own terms and conditions..

Justifying your opinion from a moral (actually immoral) perspective of "how it is", is accurate, but pointless, because all an employer cares about is the legal perspective.

[Behshad]

My opinion on it is, you use the internet, the information will be out there regardless of who says they will keep the information private. Simple as that. Disclose anything personal using the internet, that information will be out there. Privacy.....none.

Like I said.. I don't disagree with you... how you state it is essentially "how it is"...

Where you are inconsistent is when you claim the terms and conditions mean a company can do what ever it wants.. yet you call out Facebook for following its own terms and conditions..

Justifying your opinion from a moral (actually immoral) perspective of "how it is", is accurate, but pointless, because all an employer cares about is the legal perspective.

Sushi inconsistent ? No way !

[slucero]

My opinion on it is, you use the internet, the information will be out there regardless of who says they will keep the information private. Simple as that. Disclose anything personal using the internet, that information will be out there. Privacy.....none.

Well it's nice that you roll over so easy. I completely disagree. Yes - it's out there. But it should only be reviewed after receiving a warrant. If i send a note to my mother, I don;t care how many companies it passes through, the federal government has no right to review that communication unless that show just cause via the warrant process, and even then, they shouldn't.

I bet you are all the same people that complained about the patriot act. I guess it sucks to track terrorists, but totally cool to invade the privacy of citizens.

That's cool though. Keep on keepin on.

That's the problem with the "I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear" mentality.. because eventually the laws get changed so that the thing that previously was "nothing" is now "something".

The proof is in the legislation Memorex cited in this post 3 pages earlier... that Sushi replied to:

It gets better every day!

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

This is the same as walking into my house and reading personal letters I have written without permission. I can't believe the insanity that is occurring.

Well the difference is, personal letters written in your house have not been transmitted through various companies equipment and telecommunications systems. When you signed up for the Google Account, Facebook Account, etc, did you read the fine print when you "aggreed to the terms" or did you just click on it and forget it? Sort of like when an employee uses the work computer to do personal things. It's the company's equipment and they can and DO look at everything employees do on the internet at work. Wonder how some people get caught doing crimes? Because they go on line and talk about it or even show an elevated interest in specifics about a crime.

Anything and everything you do on line becomes the property of the carrier/provider. And that's where the government comes in. The government then can gather that information through the carrier/provider. Remove the carreir/provider and the government has no way of getting your information.

inconsistent indeed.. and circular..

[The Sushi Hunter]

I'm only using FB and Google as examples. I've not read their terms of agreement since I don't have any accounts set up with them. Bottom line here is regardless of what site, if personal information is being put on a server somewhere regardless of how much they say it's secure and all, it's not. The government gets involved because they go after the companies with the servers to get the information.

[slucero]

I'm only using FB and Google as examples. I've not read their terms of agreement since I don't have any accounts set up with them. Bottom line here is regardless of what site, if personal information is being put on a server somewhere regardless of how much they say it's secure and all, it's not. The government gets involved because they go after the companies with the servers to get the information.

Now you are making an anecdotal claim. That's your opinion. Your entitled to it... at least for now, until the laws are changed so you aren't....

[The Sushi Hunter]

I'm only using FB and Google as examples. I've not read their terms of agreement since I don't have any accounts set up with them. Bottom line here is regardless of what site, if personal information is being put on a server somewhere regardless of how much they say it's secure and all, it's not. The government gets involved because they go after the companies with the servers to get the information.

Now you are making an anecdotal claim. That's your opinion. Your entitled to it... at least for now, until the laws are changed so you aren't....

I'm not one of those who will be shit shocked that personal information is being gathered by the Government via internet servers. I don't need a facebook or Google account filled with my personal information stored on a web server somewhere and then have that information leaked out, or ceased by the government in order to figure it out that it's a huge mistake feeding personal information into the internet, regardless.

[The Sushi Hunter]

What makes this so much worse thanall the attacks on our embassies during Bush's term ?

It's a big deal because it appears that the Obama administration has not been straight forward with the public about it.

So, it is a big deal because it "appears" it should be....not because it IS.

What appears to me is people spend way too much time with conspiracy theories and making this way more complicated then: The White House and the State Department had a disconnect and they both fucked in dealing with the American people.

Most of the rest of what you said has conflicting stories in the media. People believe what they WANT to believe. Frankly, most of the people who are even paying attention are anti-Obama partisans anyway.

IMO, the entire thing has become a media fiasco and waste of time

Pot calling the kettle black again Monker?

Nope, I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

Well, accept Ancient Aliens and Steve Perry. They can be blamed for most anything...so much so that I think Perry IS an alien. But, that's just my theory.

I'm ready Monker, tell me some of your alien and Steve Perry conspiracy theories. I think the California state lottery if fixed, that's my conspiracy theory.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

In other news...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... ng-given-a

Oh shit

[The Sushi Hunter]

In other news...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... ng-given-a

Oh shit

How long before authorities check the puppet for DNA?

[slucero]

I'm only using FB and Google as examples. I've not read their terms of agreement since I don't have any accounts set up with them. Bottom line here is regardless of what site, if personal information is being put on a server somewhere regardless of how much they say it's secure and all, it's not. The government gets involved because they go after the companies with the servers to get the information.

Now you are making an anecdotal claim. That's your opinion. Your entitled to it... at least for now, until the laws are changed so you aren't....

I'm not one of those who will be shit shocked that personal information is being gathered by the Government via internet servers. I don't need a facebook or Google account filled with my personal information stored on a web server somewhere and then have that information leaked out, or ceased by the government in order to figure it out that it's a huge mistake feeding personal information into the internet, regardless.

If you think not having a FB or Google account will keep you "safe"... the government doesn't need access to internet servers to get your personal info... they never have.

Ever serve in the military?
File Taxes?

Just where do you think all that information is stored Einstein? Right.. on a server... on a network...

New's flash ... you freely gave it to them... so they already have that info...



You are the very definition of "sheeple".

[Memorex]

I know the government has my info. Obviously. And I could understand them taking information from say, this forum. But an email between me and anyone else should be considered private. Period. And no current or future law makes gathering that info without a warrant right.

[Monker]

Monker wrote:

I would agree that "things could be better", but taking things as they are today and comparing them to four years ago ends up with a plus for Obama - and that is part of the reason he was reelected, IMO.

Record Number of Americans Will Use Food Stamps For Thanksgiving...

FOOD PANTRY SEES 400% INCREASE IN DEMAND...



Don't Stop Believin' Monker.

And, more then the 47% did NOT vote for a Republican President.

[Rick]

I know the government has my info. Obviously. And I could understand them taking information from say, this forum. But an email between me and anyone else should be considered private. Period. And no current or future law makes gathering that info without a warrant right.

Agreed 100%.

[Monker]

I'm only using FB and Google as examples. I've not read their terms of agreement since I don't have any accounts set up with them. Bottom line here is regardless of what site, if personal information is being put on a server somewhere regardless of how much they say it's secure and all, it's not. The government gets involved because they go after the companies with the servers to get the information.

Now you are making an anecdotal claim. That's your opinion. Your entitled to it... at least for now, until the laws are changed so you aren't....

I'm not one of those who will be shit shocked that personal information is being gathered by the Government via internet servers. I don't need a facebook or Google account filled with my personal information stored on a web server somewhere and then have that information leaked out, or ceased by the government in order to figure it out that it's a huge mistake feeding personal information into the internet, regardless.

This is an irrelevant argument...Every online and satellite conversation is 'monitored' regardless.

Accept it...because it is not going to change.

[Monker]

I know the government has my info. Obviously. And I could understand them taking information from say, this forum. But an email between me and anyone else should be considered private. Period. And no current or future law makes gathering that info without a warrant right.

You guys are so naive.

So, what is going to stop the government of Brittan having intelligent offices in the US used to monitor every Email sent via the internet...and what is to stop US intelligence from giving Brittan the technology to do this? And, what is to stop Brittan from freely giving the info to the US government?

Get over it....it's monitored - ALL OF IT. The data is filtered by super computers looking for anything interesting and then it's flagged. I would be shocked if people in this very forum have not been looked into. You would never know it if it happened.

[slucero]

not only monitored... anything on any public network ever will be accessed, copied and stored within the year...


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... atacenter/

[Memorex]

I know the government has my info. Obviously. And I could understand them taking information from say, this forum. But an email between me and anyone else should be considered private. Period. And no current or future law makes gathering that info without a warrant right.

You guys are so naive.

So, what is going to stop the government of Brittan having intelligent offices in the US used to monitor every Email sent via the internet...and what is to stop US intelligence from giving Brittan the technology to do this? And, what is to stop Brittan from freely giving the info to the US government?

Get over it....it's monitored - ALL OF IT. The data is filtered by super computers looking for anything interesting and then it's flagged. I would be shocked if people in this very forum have not been looked into. You would never know it if it happened.

I know it's happening. That's not the point. The point is it should not be happening.

[Boomchild]

I'm surprised people are still arguing here. The election is over and the people have spoken.

Yes that's true but that doesn't mean this speaks for everyone and it does not change the minds of people who don't agree with Obama's plans and policies. Just because he was re-elected doesn't mean people have to stop speaking their opposition to what is going on. It's not like people are arguing that Obama stole the election and Romney was the rightful winner.

But the really cool thing is now it's pretty clear we can finally raise taxes on the rich, because they can afford it, and that should really help things turn around. I think the projected additional income from raising taxes is about 80 billion. Yes folks, billion with a 'B'. That's a lot of dough! And in the hands of the United States Federal Government it is going to do great things. I think we can all put aside the fact that our problems actually begin with a 'T', as in Trillions, but hey - can't solve it all overnight.

So let's all rejoice that we are doing great!

So, just because "the rich" have been more successful then others it's OK take more of their money then what they are already paying in taxes because they can afford it? What a joke. Do you realize that the people in the top two income brackets already pay 70% combined of the federal income taxes collected? So tell me what is the fair percentage above that 70% "the rich" should pay? Using this theory is like me saying i am going to do a little shopping at my rich neighbors house when their not home and it's OK because they can afford to replace the stuff I take. Analysts have looked at the projected funds that would come from raising taxes on the wealthy and have found that it will do nothing to impact the deficit but just add 6 weeks to the governments operating budget. I am all for closing the "loop holes" in the tax code so that the tax payer regardless of their income bracket would be paying what they are supposed to be paying. But, as we all know neither party has ever made an attempt to do that. And because of this the wealthy will just find new ways to circumvent the increase that Obama is purposing. It's like CA approving the "millionaire tax", all this will do is drive the ones affected by this new tax to move their residency somewhere else. Taxing the wealthy more will only cause the cost of goods and services to go up. It will be less money the wealthy have to invest in businesses or start new businesses which creates competition in the market place. On the surface it may look like it won't affect the non-wealthy but it will.

[Memorex]

Oh my gosh. I hope you know i was being very sarcastic. I guess I thought I made my views on taxes well known around here. No, raising taxes on the rich will do exactly zero to help our issue. But it sounds good on TV, huh?

[Behshad]

Oh my gosh. I hope you know i was being very sarcastic. I guess I thought I made my views on taxes well known around here. No, raising taxes on the rich will do exactly zero to help our issue. But it sounds good on TV, huh?

Leave it to Boomchild , whoever the fuck that is, to take that post of yours seriously. No sense of humor apparently and a troll trying to play devils advocate here. Just when I though Sushi was the boring one who wouldn't understand sarcasm , his twin shows up.

[Monker]

Oh my gosh. I hope you know i was being very sarcastic. I guess I thought I made my views on taxes well known around here. No, raising taxes on the rich will do exactly zero to help our issue. But it sounds good on TV, huh?

Leave it to Boomchild , whoever the fuck that is, to take that post of yours seriously. No sense of humor apparently and a troll trying to play devils advocate here. Just when I though Sushi was the boring one who wouldn't understand sarcasm , his twin shows up.

LOL...someone is calling Boom Boom a troll....too funny.

I've been saying that for years.

[Memorex]

I was so disappointed when Obama got on TV the other day and said we should tax the rich because they can afford it. When is that a good reason? I need a little more than that. I need him to come out and explain how the money will be used, why it's critical to the health of the country. People should not have to give a single thing just because they can. Our tax code should be based on a formula that works for everyone. That doesn't break the back of the poor or middle class, that allows businesses to invest back in their companies, and yes - even let's rich people go enjoy their money, which in turn helps the economy.

The problem is people keep talking like taxes on the rich is a solution. We are so far beyond taxing the rich it's ridiculous. That's why you have heard the numbers jump this week from 38% to 70%. Because 38% won't fix shit. But 70% is absolutely criminal.

I'll tell you what though. The people really have spoken. And the majority of people in this country want the rich to be taxed more and they want more people receiving government services. So we should do it. This is not my country alone, it is the people's country and the people have made a decision. So we get behind the president and we pass whatever it is he wants and we see how it goes. It will either work or not. Many people on this board feel it's the way to go. So why not? Hell, it's not a tax on me. So why should I care? Yea - it's going to suck for the owner of my company, but think of all the people it will help.