[partypup]

[quote=afx114]Hey pp, you may want to call up Google and complain that they are violating your privacy by archiving all your posts here without your permission:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apiggington.com+partypup

I’m pretty sure that Google makes transparency claims too.[/quote]

Hey afx114, I may want to do that. But I probably won’t because so many people have already picked up the phone and even gone a step further and filed lawsuits. I’m sure you are aware that Google is one of the biggest transgressors of privacy and is facing a multitude of suits on the that front. Check out this picture and let’s talk about whether Google’s transparency and privacy claims mean jack:

http://www.switched.com/2007/06/01/the-scariest-google-street-view-finds/

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are you saying that because Google violates our privacy interests in creepy ways, then it’s okay for our government to do the same thing?

Because here’s the thing: as far as I know Google isn’t part of the federal government and did not campaign on a platform of internet privacy and transparency.

Once again, if we are not going to hold an elected official – and the Commander in Chief, no less – to a higher standard than we would hold a private company like Google, then let’s all be on the same page. I, for one, thought *change* was coming and our privacy interests would be respected more in the new era of Hope – if not by Google, then at least by the President who is claiming transparency. Again, I was only taking the guy at his word. It sounds like that’s too much too ask, and it appears that you’re comfortable with that because the guy belongs to your political party. I, however, don’t defend people when they are trampling my rights – regardless of which party they belong to or whether I voted for them. I call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. If I’m getting screwed, it doesn’t matter to me who’s doing the screwing. At the end of the day, I’m still sore and can barely walk.

[partypup]

[quote=afx114]Hey pp, you may want to call up Google and complain that they are violating your privacy by archiving all your posts here without your permission:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apiggington.com+partypup

I’m pretty sure that Google makes transparency claims too.[/quote]

Hey afx114, I may want to do that. But I probably won’t because so many people have already picked up the phone and even gone a step further and filed lawsuits. I’m sure you are aware that Google is one of the biggest transgressors of privacy and is facing a multitude of suits on the that front. Check out this picture and let’s talk about whether Google’s transparency and privacy claims mean jack:

http://www.switched.com/2007/06/01/the-scariest-google-street-view-finds/

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are you saying that because Google violates our privacy interests in creepy ways, then it’s okay for our government to do the same thing?

Because here’s the thing: as far as I know Google isn’t part of the federal government and did not campaign on a platform of internet privacy and transparency.

Once again, if we are not going to hold an elected official – and the Commander in Chief, no less – to a higher standard than we would hold a private company like Google, then let’s all be on the same page. I, for one, thought *change* was coming and our privacy interests would be respected more in the new era of Hope – if not by Google, then at least by the President who is claiming transparency. Again, I was only taking the guy at his word. It sounds like that’s too much too ask, and it appears that you’re comfortable with that because the guy belongs to your political party. I, however, don’t defend people when they are trampling my rights – regardless of which party they belong to or whether I voted for them. I call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. If I’m getting screwed, it doesn’t matter to me who’s doing the screwing. At the end of the day, I’m still sore and can barely walk.

[partypup]

[quote=afx114]Hey pp, you may want to call up Google and complain that they are violating your privacy by archiving all your posts here without your permission:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apiggington.com+partypup

I’m pretty sure that Google makes transparency claims too.[/quote]

Hey afx114, I may want to do that. But I probably won’t because so many people have already picked up the phone and even gone a step further and filed lawsuits. I’m sure you are aware that Google is one of the biggest transgressors of privacy and is facing a multitude of suits on the that front. Check out this picture and let’s talk about whether Google’s transparency and privacy claims mean jack:

http://www.switched.com/2007/06/01/the-scariest-google-street-view-finds/

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are you saying that because Google violates our privacy interests in creepy ways, then it’s okay for our government to do the same thing?

Because here’s the thing: as far as I know Google isn’t part of the federal government and did not campaign on a platform of internet privacy and transparency.

Once again, if we are not going to hold an elected official – and the Commander in Chief, no less – to a higher standard than we would hold a private company like Google, then let’s all be on the same page. I, for one, thought *change* was coming and our privacy interests would be respected more in the new era of Hope – if not by Google, then at least by the President who is claiming transparency. Again, I was only taking the guy at his word. It sounds like that’s too much too ask, and it appears that you’re comfortable with that because the guy belongs to your political party. I, however, don’t defend people when they are trampling my rights – regardless of which party they belong to or whether I voted for them. I call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. If I’m getting screwed, it doesn’t matter to me who’s doing the screwing. At the end of the day, I’m still sore and can barely walk.

[partypup]

[quote=afx114]Hey pp, you may want to call up Google and complain that they are violating your privacy by archiving all your posts here without your permission:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apiggington.com+partypup

I’m pretty sure that Google makes transparency claims too.[/quote]

Hey afx114, I may want to do that. But I probably won’t because so many people have already picked up the phone and even gone a step further and filed lawsuits. I’m sure you are aware that Google is one of the biggest transgressors of privacy and is facing a multitude of suits on the that front. Check out this picture and let’s talk about whether Google’s transparency and privacy claims mean jack:

http://www.switched.com/2007/06/01/the-scariest-google-street-view-finds/

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are you saying that because Google violates our privacy interests in creepy ways, then it’s okay for our government to do the same thing?

Because here’s the thing: as far as I know Google isn’t part of the federal government and did not campaign on a platform of internet privacy and transparency.

Once again, if we are not going to hold an elected official – and the Commander in Chief, no less – to a higher standard than we would hold a private company like Google, then let’s all be on the same page. I, for one, thought *change* was coming and our privacy interests would be respected more in the new era of Hope – if not by Google, then at least by the President who is claiming transparency. Again, I was only taking the guy at his word. It sounds like that’s too much too ask, and it appears that you’re comfortable with that because the guy belongs to your political party. I, however, don’t defend people when they are trampling my rights – regardless of which party they belong to or whether I voted for them. I call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. If I’m getting screwed, it doesn’t matter to me who’s doing the screwing. At the end of the day, I’m still sore and can barely walk.

[partypup]

[quote=afx114]Hey pp, you may want to call up Google and complain that they are violating your privacy by archiving all your posts here without your permission:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apiggington.com+partypup

I’m pretty sure that Google makes transparency claims too.[/quote]

Hey afx114, I may want to do that. But I probably won’t because so many people have already picked up the phone and even gone a step further and filed lawsuits. I’m sure you are aware that Google is one of the biggest transgressors of privacy and is facing a multitude of suits on the that front. Check out this picture and let’s talk about whether Google’s transparency and privacy claims mean jack:

http://www.switched.com/2007/06/01/the-scariest-google-street-view-finds/

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are you saying that because Google violates our privacy interests in creepy ways, then it’s okay for our government to do the same thing?

Because here’s the thing: as far as I know Google isn’t part of the federal government and did not campaign on a platform of internet privacy and transparency.

Once again, if we are not going to hold an elected official – and the Commander in Chief, no less – to a higher standard than we would hold a private company like Google, then let’s all be on the same page. I, for one, thought *change* was coming and our privacy interests would be respected more in the new era of Hope – if not by Google, then at least by the President who is claiming transparency. Again, I was only taking the guy at his word. It sounds like that’s too much too ask, and it appears that you’re comfortable with that because the guy belongs to your political party. I, however, don’t defend people when they are trampling my rights – regardless of which party they belong to or whether I voted for them. I call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. If I’m getting screwed, it doesn’t matter to me who’s doing the screwing. At the end of the day, I’m still sore and can barely walk.

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]I assume that anything I put on the internet is not private.

It’s kind of silly to think otherwise. Even if the site you’re posting to has privacy assurances – there are still hackers.

It’s the internet, after all.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, I also assume that if someone promises transparency and vows to protect my privacy on the internet, then they will operate differently form the hackers and the other creeps who populate the internet. My mistake for taking our President at his word, UCCal. I’ll be sure to keep that in mind going forward 😉

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]I assume that anything I put on the internet is not private.

It’s kind of silly to think otherwise. Even if the site you’re posting to has privacy assurances – there are still hackers.

It’s the internet, after all.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, I also assume that if someone promises transparency and vows to protect my privacy on the internet, then they will operate differently form the hackers and the other creeps who populate the internet. My mistake for taking our President at his word, UCCal. I’ll be sure to keep that in mind going forward 😉

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]I assume that anything I put on the internet is not private.

It’s kind of silly to think otherwise. Even if the site you’re posting to has privacy assurances – there are still hackers.

It’s the internet, after all.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, I also assume that if someone promises transparency and vows to protect my privacy on the internet, then they will operate differently form the hackers and the other creeps who populate the internet. My mistake for taking our President at his word, UCCal. I’ll be sure to keep that in mind going forward 😉

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]I assume that anything I put on the internet is not private.

It’s kind of silly to think otherwise. Even if the site you’re posting to has privacy assurances – there are still hackers.

It’s the internet, after all.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, I also assume that if someone promises transparency and vows to protect my privacy on the internet, then they will operate differently form the hackers and the other creeps who populate the internet. My mistake for taking our President at his word, UCCal. I’ll be sure to keep that in mind going forward 😉

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]I assume that anything I put on the internet is not private.

It’s kind of silly to think otherwise. Even if the site you’re posting to has privacy assurances – there are still hackers.

It’s the internet, after all.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, I also assume that if someone promises transparency and vows to protect my privacy on the internet, then they will operate differently form the hackers and the other creeps who populate the internet. My mistake for taking our President at his word, UCCal. I’ll be sure to keep that in mind going forward 😉

[partypup]

[quote=air_ogi]partypup, you are misinformed. I know the article is a bit confusing, but it is your responsibility to do a bit of research on something that sounds completely improbable and comes from a biased source.

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

[/quote]

Air, I hear you, and thanks for including that link. Unfortunately, it doesn’t allay my concern because this information is still being gathered “without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet. ”

When my friends post comments to my Facebook page, I don’t archive their posts. Do you? Do you even have that capability? Why does the White House have the capability to archive posts on Facebook that other users do not? And if you DID have this capability, wouldn’t you let your friends know, “Hey, by the way, I plan to collect all the information you send my way.” I would immediately wonder, “Why do you need to do that?”

No matter how you slice it, there is no transparency here. If he were Dubya, I would just chalk it up to another totalitarian erosion of my civil liberties. What more would I expect from that goon?

Maybe this kind of double-speak doesn’t bother you because it’s coming from Obama. So be it. But I’m not partisan. And to masquerade as a promoter of transparency and then take this kind of action without the consent of posters is disingenuous, at best. Is that the kind of *change* you were expecting?

[partypup]

[quote=air_ogi]partypup, you are misinformed. I know the article is a bit confusing, but it is your responsibility to do a bit of research on something that sounds completely improbable and comes from a biased source.

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

[/quote]

Air, I hear you, and thanks for including that link. Unfortunately, it doesn’t allay my concern because this information is still being gathered “without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet. ”

When my friends post comments to my Facebook page, I don’t archive their posts. Do you? Do you even have that capability? Why does the White House have the capability to archive posts on Facebook that other users do not? And if you DID have this capability, wouldn’t you let your friends know, “Hey, by the way, I plan to collect all the information you send my way.” I would immediately wonder, “Why do you need to do that?”

No matter how you slice it, there is no transparency here. If he were Dubya, I would just chalk it up to another totalitarian erosion of my civil liberties. What more would I expect from that goon?

Maybe this kind of double-speak doesn’t bother you because it’s coming from Obama. So be it. But I’m not partisan. And to masquerade as a promoter of transparency and then take this kind of action without the consent of posters is disingenuous, at best. Is that the kind of *change* you were expecting?

[partypup]

[quote=air_ogi]partypup, you are misinformed. I know the article is a bit confusing, but it is your responsibility to do a bit of research on something that sounds completely improbable and comes from a biased source.

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

[/quote]

Air, I hear you, and thanks for including that link. Unfortunately, it doesn’t allay my concern because this information is still being gathered “without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet. ”

When my friends post comments to my Facebook page, I don’t archive their posts. Do you? Do you even have that capability? Why does the White House have the capability to archive posts on Facebook that other users do not? And if you DID have this capability, wouldn’t you let your friends know, “Hey, by the way, I plan to collect all the information you send my way.” I would immediately wonder, “Why do you need to do that?”

No matter how you slice it, there is no transparency here. If he were Dubya, I would just chalk it up to another totalitarian erosion of my civil liberties. What more would I expect from that goon?

Maybe this kind of double-speak doesn’t bother you because it’s coming from Obama. So be it. But I’m not partisan. And to masquerade as a promoter of transparency and then take this kind of action without the consent of posters is disingenuous, at best. Is that the kind of *change* you were expecting?

[partypup]

[quote=air_ogi]partypup, you are misinformed. I know the article is a bit confusing, but it is your responsibility to do a bit of research on something that sounds completely improbable and comes from a biased source.

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

[/quote]

Air, I hear you, and thanks for including that link. Unfortunately, it doesn’t allay my concern because this information is still being gathered “without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet. ”

When my friends post comments to my Facebook page, I don’t archive their posts. Do you? Do you even have that capability? Why does the White House have the capability to archive posts on Facebook that other users do not? And if you DID have this capability, wouldn’t you let your friends know, “Hey, by the way, I plan to collect all the information you send my way.” I would immediately wonder, “Why do you need to do that?”

No matter how you slice it, there is no transparency here. If he were Dubya, I would just chalk it up to another totalitarian erosion of my civil liberties. What more would I expect from that goon?

Maybe this kind of double-speak doesn’t bother you because it’s coming from Obama. So be it. But I’m not partisan. And to masquerade as a promoter of transparency and then take this kind of action without the consent of posters is disingenuous, at best. Is that the kind of *change* you were expecting?

[partypup]

[quote=air_ogi]partypup, you are misinformed. I know the article is a bit confusing, but it is your responsibility to do a bit of research on something that sounds completely improbable and comes from a biased source.

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

[/quote]

Air, I hear you, and thanks for including that link. Unfortunately, it doesn’t allay my concern because this information is still being gathered “without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet. ”

When my friends post comments to my Facebook page, I don’t archive their posts. Do you? Do you even have that capability? Why does the White House have the capability to archive posts on Facebook that other users do not? And if you DID have this capability, wouldn’t you let your friends know, “Hey, by the way, I plan to collect all the information you send my way.” I would immediately wonder, “Why do you need to do that?”

No matter how you slice it, there is no transparency here. If he were Dubya, I would just chalk it up to another totalitarian erosion of my civil liberties. What more would I expect from that goon?

Maybe this kind of double-speak doesn’t bother you because it’s coming from Obama. So be it. But I’m not partisan. And to masquerade as a promoter of transparency and then take this kind of action without the consent of posters is disingenuous, at best. Is that the kind of *change* you were expecting?

[Author]

Posts