Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/5/09 12:53 PM, Memorize wrote: So since they do not have that right regarding me (rather than the Dealer), how could I possibly prove that the Government did or did not illegally view my personal information?

See? It's not hard to figure out.

I still don't understand what being able to prove it has to do with the discussion. If I get stabbed in a dark alley, know who the stabber is, but have no proof that it was that individual, what ramifications does that have on the individual's right to stab me?

The contract between the government and the dealer does not allow the government to legally inspect or disclose your personal information.

To turn around and say, "but they still might" is really another discussion altogether. Honestly, the contract you have with your ISP probably provides the U.S. government more wiggle room to abuse your personal information than this CARS.gov contract.

At 8/5/09 01:02 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: The contract between the government and the dealer does not allow the government to legally inspect or disclose your personal information.

yeah, but they can anyway. and they probably will.

now i know what you're thinking

"WHAAAT? MY PERFECT GOVERNMENT, COMMIT A CRIME?! OUTRAGEOUS!"

but yeah, they can do it.

At 8/5/09 01:02 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

To turn around and say, "but they still might" is really another discussion altogether. Honestly, the contract you have with your ISP probably provides the U.S. government more wiggle room to abuse your personal information than this CARS.gov contract.

You forget the fact that the Government is capable of writing its own search warrants without a Judge, all due to the Patriot Act.

At 8/5/09 02:37 PM, homor wrote: "WHAAAT? MY PERFECT GOVERNMENT, COMMIT A CRIME?! OUTRAGEOUS!"

No. I'm not thinking that at all.

At 8/5/09 02:40 PM, Memorize wrote: You forget the fact that the Government is capable of writing its own search warrants without a Judge, all due to the Patriot Act.

No. I didn't forget. I'm just actually addressing the topic at hand: whether or not the cars.gov contract legally enables the government to inspect and disclose your personal information.

It doesn't.

What the government can do independent of the cars.gov contract is another topic.

Sorry sorry.

Topic at hand: Whether the contract is constitutional.

It is.

Not surprising. I was reading the other week the healthcare bill is packed with all other sorts of nasty tracking, spying, and other crap that would go hand in hand with any such program. This ain't just the US kids, it's everywhere. The internet is a scary scary place for governments internationally because they don't (yet) have effective controls on it and the ability to monitor you and what not.

This is business as usual.

As far as an uprising. Yeah, I used to believe in fairy tales myself. Revolutions are easy as shit to start, seriously, you can start a revolution or uprising with just a few friends and some guns.

But then you have to WIN. You have to BEAT THE ESTABLISHED ORDER. Then, if you beat them, you have to replace them. I don't think anyone in this country has the vision and/or the balls to make it happen. People talk a lot about going back to the way America should be, or tearing government down and starting over. But I never hear much beyond that, I don't hear much that makes me think there's a plan beyond "burn it all down" or when there is, it fails to convince me it'd be substantially better then what's there now.

There is a problem in government, and the problem boils down to we only ever elect one of two factions into power and they know it so now they're making handshake deals and trying to win the biggest and best chair but in the end the agenda is always the same: enrich themselves and their friends, and try not to upset the apple cart so badly that the rubes (that'd be the public) catch on. Don't like it? Then it's time to stop playing that game and instead of all that time and research your putting into alternate governmental forms that'll never happen, how about looking at alternative CANDIDATES who you think will do a way better job then the one's you don't like right now. Just a thought. Probably going to get ignored though because it looks like this thread is already being ceded to the anti-Obama pro "wee revolution and V For Vendetta!!!" types. By the way, if you think V was "terrorism yay" and V was a hero, you missed the point. Like completely.

not all revolutions involve guns. just take a look at the 'tea party movement' Many 'Teabaggers' as liberals like to call them went to McCaskill's town hall teleprompter reading and were asking questions that the senator would rather not be asked.

In Bush's 8 years in office, the democrats never managed to form an organized group like the Tea Party Movement. They were not prepared when the conservatives formed up and fought back. At first they thought the american people would just drop their trousers, bend over, and take it like a bitch. instead, the teabaggers fought back and now Tim Bishop is cancelling his meetings because he doesn't want dissent.

The thing that riles up a lot of non liberals is that liberal politicians often put their lofty ideals in front of what makes sense. We have Obama running around spouting that we NEED cap and trade (economy is recovering but still in the toilet) and we need government health care at the same time (economy is still in the toilet, can't take on these massive burdens)

"But Korriken, what do you mean by putting ideals in front of what makes sense?"

Here is one example that shines like the midday sun. In California, there is a massive budget crisis. We all know this. What the government needs is more revenue to sustain its spending. Since the government in fact needs more money to operate, it would make sense to open up new ways of obtaining revenue. So my question is this. "Why would a government strapped for cash kill off a proposal to open offshore oil drilling, sell the rights for $100 million + royalties, THEN expunge the vote record?"

the first answer is obvious. why they would expunge the vote is even easier. "#1. oil drilling goes against their ideals, they want everyone to drive cars that run on happy thoughts and reprocessed uniform feces.#2 they expunged the vote to prevent themselves from looking bad for saying "oil drilling? Hell no! we'll just hike up taxes on the rich again!" It's simply dishonest of the legislators to do such a thing then try to hide it from their masters, the people of California. This kind of thing pisses people who pay attention off. It's like offering a meal to a beggar, who tells you to come back when you can give him some money, then goes to the homeless shelter complaining that he hasn't eaten in a few days.

....

... eh ... ok ...

They tookeur ferth ermendment rights!

I'm on Bacchanalian's side with this one, except for the possible exceptions that memorize put up.

Now in a free society, an idiotic but otherwise free contract, for example "I agree to let XXXX take all of my stuff with no recourse" would be rejected.

Now as far as i can see, the Government is able to legally take ownership of your files on two conditions, ONE, if you agree to the terms and conditions, and TWO, if you're on their website.

Now as long as the contract is voluntary, i honestly don't care whether or not the terms are unfair or idiotic. The car dealers will have to decide for themselfs whether or not it is worth the risk. It's for the same reason i have no problem with people making contracts like the one i bolded.

Now... i have two exceptions

First, if the government forces dealers to agree to the contract by any coercion, implied or openly stated.

Second, and this is a bit more complex...

if

The car dealer voluntarily accepts the terms of the contract, and enables the government to take the dealers files, but those files have information about other individuals,

andIFthe other individuals did not consent to have the government look at their files or any third party separate from their car dealer,

then i would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.

Now... i DOUBT that the government is going to obey the rules. But it seems to me that individuals who do not chose this on their volition are pretty safe. The Cardealers files likely do not include information on individuals that are terribly scandalous. And if the cardealer gets screwed because they accepted the contract, that is their fault.

guess what. glenn beck hoodwinked you all!

even if that privacy statement was true, how do you think the gov't would have accessed your computer in the first place, and how would it affect all 300mil ppl in this nation?

just to reinforce--fox news is a lie, and take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.

At 8/8/09 01:30 PM, p4c wrote:

even if that privacy statement was true, how do you think the gov't would have accessed your computer in the first place, and how would it affect all 300mil ppl in this nation?

No one is saying that it's some mass plot to effect the entire populace.

The concern is a dealer putting someone's personal information on their computer, then the Gov. having total access to that computer without the person's permission (the individual who the dealer got the information from).

At 8/8/09 01:36 PM, Memorize wrote: The concern is a dealer putting someone's personal information on their computer, then the Gov. having total access to that computer without the person's permission (the individual who the dealer got the information from).

Total access to the dealer's computer does not allow the government total access to your YOUR information, even if it's on the dealer's computer, unless you're the one agreeing to the contract.

At 8/8/09 07:00 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Total access to the dealer's computer does not allow the government total access to your YOUR information, even if it's on the dealer's computer, unless you're the one agreeing to the contract.

Do you know why Congress passed the FISA act?

At 8/8/09 07:03 PM, Memorize wrote: Do you know why Congress passed the FISA act?

What does the patriot act have to do with the terms of the cars.gov dealer contract?

you guys obviously didnt read it.

it doesnt allow access to all files on the dealer's computer. it allows access to all files on THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS ONLINE SYSTEM. gawd, please, RTFA

At 8/8/09 01:36 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/8/09 01:30 PM, p4c wrote:

even if that privacy statement was true, how do you think the gov't would have accessed your computer in the first place, and how would it affect all 300mil ppl in this nation?

No one is saying that it's some mass plot to effect the entire populace.

The concern is a dealer putting someone's personal information on their computer, then the Gov. having total access to that computer without the person's permission (the individual who the dealer got the information from).

Memorize i have a pretty good feeling that when you agree to give your information to a car dealer, it's implicit in the arrangement that you agree to allow the Company to do with the information whatever it pleases.

Perhaps not, but i would assume such.

At 8/8/09 08:57 PM, p4c wrote: you guys obviously didnt read it.

I read it and you're right.

it doesnt allow access to all files on the dealer's computer. it allows access to all files on THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS ONLINE SYSTEM. gawd, please, RTFA

Yeah but the government still might use it to spy on us!

At 8/10/09 09:00 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Yeah but the government still might use it to spy on us!

Except that they have.

Btw, this was why they passed the FISA bill.

At 8/10/09 01:10 PM, Memorize wrote: Except that they have.

That link is not proof that it, the cars.gov dealer transaction contract, legally violates the 4th amendment.

Since you clearly have trouble with pronouns, I'll rewind a bit for you.

p4c: even if that privacy statement was true
p4c: it (the privacy statement) doesnt allow access to all files on the dealer's computer
me: the government still might use it (the privacy statement) to spy on us!
you: Except that they have (wiretapped without a warrant).

Seriously... are you trolling?

FISA and warrent-less wiretapping make the cars.gov contract a MOOT POINT, because they enable the government INDEPENDENTLY of the cars.gov contract.

At 8/10/09 05:11 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 8/10/09 01:10 PM, Memorize wrote: Except that they have.

That link is not proof that it, the cars.gov dealer transaction contract, legally violates the 4th amendment.

Since you clearly have trouble with pronouns, I'll rewind a bit for you.

I said that they could, not that they would.

You're the one saying that they couldn't legally do what I'm concerned about.

What I'm finding interesting is that you're putting trust in the same Government that said they wouldn't use the warrant-less wiretapping on anyone except foreign terror suspects and are now saying "no, we won't use our system to violate anyone's privacy."

p4c: even if that privacy statement was true
p4c: it (the privacy statement) doesnt allow access to all files on the dealer's computer
me: the government still might use it (the privacy statement) to spy on us!
you: Except that they have (wiretapped without a warrant).

Seriously... are you trolling?

Oh, I'm sorry. You must have missed the initial warning label before they put it down.

Allow me to re-post it:

"This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is property of the U.S. Government.

Any or all use of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign."

Now, I'm going to assume you'll say "they mean the CARS system" despite the fact that they said "all files" after claiming your computer is a Federal Computer System.

FISA and warrent-less wiretapping make the cars.gov contract a MOOT POINT, because they enable the government INDEPENDENTLY of the cars.gov contract.

They make the Government "Independently"?

Pft, and you said I was the one with the grammar problems.

At 8/10/09 06:03 PM, Memorize wrote: You're the one saying that they couldn't legally do what I'm concerned about.

By the terms of the cars.gov dealer contract, they cannot legally spy on you.

By the terms of the patriot act, they can do whatever they want.

The government has the power and capability to do whatever it wants with your information regardless of the 'restrictions' built into the former two systems.

What I'm finding interesting is that you're putting trust in the same Government

Um.... no? I'm not putting any trust in the government. That assumption is an affect of your incessant need to explode the context of this discussion to the point at which you're actually no longer dealing with the cars.gov issue - but using it as a pedestal to levy claims against the government for other things that it's doing.

Oh, I'm sorry. You must have missed the initial warning label before they put it down.

No. I didn't miss it. My argument depends on it.

Now, I'm going to assume you'll say "they mean the CARS system" despite the fact that they said "all files" after claiming your computer is a Federal Computer System.

My point actually stands in either case.

FISA and warrent-less wiretapping make the cars.gov contract a MOOT POINT, because they enable the government INDEPENDENTLY of the cars.gov contract.

They make the Government "Independently"?

They enable the government [to act] independently OF the car's.gov contract.

The "to act" is inferred from the grammatical structure. It's not proper, but it's not all that awful when the reader is actually trying to understand the sentence, rather than pick it apart for grammatical errors.

My remark about the pronouns was meant to highlight how shifty your argument actually is.

At 8/10/09 06:03 PM, Memorize wrote: They make the Government "Independently"?

Pft, and you said I was the one with the grammar problems.

Wait... no. That's correct as it is jackass.

THEY ENABLE the government INDEPENDENTLY.

Memorize, please try to stay on topic. aka Cars.Gov. If you'd like to discuss another issue, you have a "new post" button.

Anyhow, Bacch. and p4c seem to be pretty strongly in the clear on this argument. Once again, we have a topic based on a news source in which the topic starter didn't check his facts.

It appears Cars.Com doesn't do anything unless you're a dealer, and even so, it appears the intentions were to monitor the use of the Cars.Com system. Unless the dealer is doing something fraudulent he need not worry. And if he is worried, he can choose not to accept the terms.

Anyway, I did click the link and found the quote myself:

"You are accessing a U.S. Government information system. This information system,
including all related equipment, networks, and network devices, is provided for U.S.
Government-authorized use only. Unauthorized or improper use of this system is prohibited,
and may result in civil and criminal penalties, or administrative disciplinary action.
The communications and data stored or transiting this system may be, for any lawful
Government purpose, monitored, recorded, and subject to audit or investigation.
By using this system, you understand and consent to such terms."

Have at it, undoctored, unbolded.

Haha, oh you guys. This is fox news. Listen to the woman, she purposefully uses "scary" words just to make you shit bricks, "Tracking cookies" are given by EVERY website, google, newgrounds, whatever, she's just trying to scare you.

Silly politics people.

Hey Mem, what info of yours would be on a car dealers computer?
Name, address, phone number, income, place of employment, banking information, basically shit the gov already has at tax time. Unless of course your evading taxes and screwing the gov then I guess you should be nervous.

That and if I did sign up (login) how would the gov get access to my PC? Come to my house and take it? Cuz they won't get in over the internet.

At 8/11/09 06:57 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Memorize, please try to stay on topic. aka Cars.Gov. If you'd like to discuss another issue, you have a "new post" button.

I would do that except... gee, it's part of the same issue.

Way to figure that one out.

Of course, it would also help if you'd realize I'm going by what their site used to say, ie. We have control over your computer and everything on it; we own it."

At 8/11/09 08:08 AM, bcdemon wrote: Hey Mem, what info of yours would be on a car dealers computer?
Name, address, phone number, income, place of employment, banking information, basically shit the gov already has at tax time. Unless of course your evading taxes and screwing the gov then I guess you should be nervous.

So under your logic, no one should ever need a warrant because of all the information they already have?

Well I suppose such a mentality would make sense with an Al Qaeda sympathizer.

At 8/4/09 08:05 AM, ertysproductions wrote:

At 8/3/09 10:11 PM, RDSchley wrote: This is why my sig is my sig.

Our governemnt can blow me.

Can we please start a revolution now?

I'll be a leader.

I will start shipping the Guy Fawkes masks and make sure the explosives are ready, sir!

Start marking the V on every public building!

At 8/11/09 12:02 PM, Memorize wrote: I would do that except... gee, it's part of the same issue.

A topic is made to discuss ducks.

You decide to talk about geese.

We say that geese are not ducks.

You say that geese are still birds.

Except the topic isn't about birds. It's about ducks.

At 8/11/09 12:02 PM, Memorize wrote: Of course, it would also help if you'd realize I'm going by what their site used to say, ie. We have control over your computer and everything on it; we own it."

Haha, what it used to say...that it no longer does...that you haven't proven without a biased news source, or in general really, it ever said. That's good.

I agree with Bach and gum on this one. Especially what Bach said. Thanks to the Patriot Act they really don't need to do any new or crazy language to go and spy on anybody, all they need do is decide you're a terrorist or a suspected terrorist and they already have all the legal powers they need to spy on people or do essentially whatever they want to privacy rights. But see, it's inconvenient to bring that up for the Republican and neo-con biased media sources because that's admitting that they're guy set all that up for any administration in the future to exploit. Not to mention their determined to undermine Obama and the Democrats in all possible ways to deliver a Republican victory in 2012, and even sooner for Congressional elections. That's why bias works, take some of the truth, mix in some distortions and agenda, stir well till it sounds reasonable to a palatable audience, and then disseminate.

There's other reasons I would think you can argue against this program, this is not a good one as has been pointed out. Though I guess to find a good reason would require a bit more work and maybe not convince as many people.