Big Brother Watching You From Cash For Clunkers

[jdansmith]

Always read the privacy statement. I'm not saying its happening, just be carefulwhat you agree to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqfuZ7hiap0

[themadscientist]

I like my "clunker" lucky for me.

[TBrack]

I see this all the time on the military computers and I would NEVER click yes on my computer at home.

[AZhitman]

Holy crap.

How did this get through?

Wow. So, the party of "personal privacy" implemented this?

The "stay out of my bedroom" party doesn't believe in "stay out of my computer"?

Wow.

[Didderson]

That's only for the dealer computer. I mean come on guys they don't understand the reason why government has 'access'. If you're connecting to the DOT server (every service station does this upon inspecting your vehicle) you could try to hack it, and screw up the server. If you do this gives them permission to fight back against people trying to destroy the infrastructure of the server. Just my 2 cents. It's not your computer anyway, just the dealers so WHO CARES?Fukin fox news.

[nissangirl74]

It's not your computer anyway, just the dealers so WHO CARES?Fukin fox news.

I CARE. And no offense, because I don't know you, but it bothers me greatly that this whole situation doesn't bother you. Where do you draw the line and say, "No more"?

[frosti108]

glenn beck is a retarded racist. f*** him

[DroptopDrifting]

i went onto cars.gov to see it for myself but the site looks way different now and doesn't have that dislaimer anymore, not that i can find atleast...

[AZhitman]

glenn beck is a retarded racist. f*** him

Yes, there's an intellectual response - Attack the reporter.

Actually, Mr. Beck is probably quite a bit smarter than you.

I doubt he's a racist, but if he is, that's his business... unless he's PERSONALLY hurting YOU with his views... which I doubt.

Back on topic: Let's hear from the defenders of "personal freedoms" and privacy advocates...

[MinisterofDOOM]

This kind of thing is nothing new. EULAs and TOSs have been notorious for hiding creepy wording like this for ages now. That doesn't make it any less creepy (or unacceptable) though.

Remember the Google Chrome EULA hubbub?

The people designing these "agreements" are banking on the fact that no actually one reads them.

[takethewall]

Dealer computers. Don't care. Sorry. Also, I don't trust anything I see on Fox News, nor on MSNBC, so I don't want to hear it.

[themadscientist]

Then go away.

[marlin29311]

Blah blah blah...I don't trust Fox news, they're all right wing nuts....blah blah blah...

I only trust the Communist News Network - it's the best source of information ever.

Either way, hidden language like this in anything is really annoying. Its really upsetting that people try to take advantage of the consumer like this...

[Rev_D21]

Yes, there's an intellectual response - Attack the reporter.

Actually, Mr. Beck is probably quite a bit smarter than you.

Actually he is nothing more than a partisan sensationalist hack commentator. Not a non-partisan new reporter. Now GET OFF MY PHONE!!!

[EpicNightMayor]

glenn beck is a retarded racist. f*** him

That's why I like him

[f1seb]

I still support the Cash for Clunkers program. If my future car was attainable by this program than I would use it.

[ZOMG.SR20]

ill leave my webcam on they'll geta nice show

[AZhitman]

Defend it.

Minimize its importance.

Attack the messenger.

Rationalize it.

Discredit the source.

Regardless of how you choose to respond, there's no reason this language should have ever been present.

No, I'm not a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist... but I DO dislike it when I see things like this that are designed to slip under the radar and chip away at our freedoms.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Did anyone read what Didderson wrote? I'll repeat if if you didn't care to...THIS INVOLVES THE DEALERSHIP - DoT CONNECTIONS.

This has NOTHING to do with American freedoms and everything to do with network security.

[szh]

No, I'm not a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist... but I DO dislike it when I see things like this that are designed to slip under the radar and chip away at our freedoms.

Yup.

Till we get here ... someday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7X9wP1zQcQ



Z

[szh]

Did anyone read what Didderson wrote? I'll repeat if if you didn't care to...THIS INVOLVES THE DEALERSHIP - DoT CONNECTIONS.

Should NOT happen to that connection either, by the way.

This has NOTHING to do with American freedoms and everything to do with network security.

I disagree. I understand network security and privacy issues quite well, thanks. My work entails many such issues of this kind for our customers who get data services and connect to our secure wireless networks.

The wording talked about in the "agreement" was far more overkill than could possibly be required for any "network security" issues.

But, I think that there is a finite small probability that it was not intentional ... just copying of existing internal employee access agreements for that network that somebody did not re-read before using it!

Z

[AZhitman]

Did anyone read what Didderson wrote? I'll repeat if if you didn't care to...THIS INVOLVES THE DEALERSHIP - DoT CONNECTIONS.

This has NOTHING to do with American freedoms and everything to do with network security.

Nope.

Wrong.

Sorry.

Two (VERY IMPORTANT) points:

1) If it was legit, and appropriate, why was it suddenly changed? Hmmm?

2) None of that language was appropriate. Here's a "Terms Of Use" statement that covers all of their concerns... http://www.craigslist.org/about/terms.of.use

Note that it says NOTHING about the computer and its contents "becoming the property of the US Govt."

I work very closely with Network Security for the State of Arizona (many of my cases deal directly with violations thereof) and I can tell you, this was NOT appropriate verbage for "a network security issue".

[szh]

A good rational write-up here:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...rvice

Z

[DroptopDrifting]

But, I think that there is a finite small probability that it was not intentional ... just copying of existing internal employee access agreements for that network that somebody did not re-read before using it!

i definately agree with that. i would put money on it that they did exactly that, it was my thoughts as well. but once it was brought to attention it was removed.

i don't agree with this program at all, or most of this administrations actions, but i do believe this was accidental.

[AZhitman]

i definately agree with that. i would put money on it that they did exactly that, it was my thoughts as well. but once it was brought to attention it was removed.

i don't agree with this program at all, or most of this administrations actions, but i do believe this was accidental.

Once it was brought to attention?

Please don't take offense at what I'm about to say, as it's NOT leveled at you, but...

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!

I work in state government. When I draft a simple policy, it's reviewed by at least 3 other people, sometimes more. When I drafted code, it's subjected to weeks and weeks of scrutiny - committees, attorneys, etc.

No. What happened here is once there was OUTRAGE, they pulled it down.

Either that, or our government is a lot more halfassed than even I thought it could be.

[DroptopDrifting]

I've come to believe that, although we may still have some great state gov't's (i.e. texas and sounds like arizona as well), the federal gov't as a whole is way more half assed than it ever was. Think about it, when was the last time you heard that even just one senator or representative in congress read one full pending bill. Our federal gov't has become way too lazy and half assed. But that's just the conclusion I've come to through my own personal experiences with the federal gov., I could be wrong

[AZhitman]

My fear is that you're EXACTLY right.

FWIW, AZ is not immune to this - We've got some boneheads across the street too.

[szh]

Either that, or our government is a lot more halfassed than even I thought it could be.

By the way, I don't know if what I said is accurate ... just a finite small possibility, and I could entirely be wrong too.

Z