Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
That's probably what I'll do, but with the way products are rolled out these days part of me worries that I will be missing out on some software patch that makes the TV not give me ball cancer or something.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Privacy - this is getting ridiculous (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sand
- Start date
Statorama
Footballguy
Exactly.
Don't get me wrong, people being able to be 'all up in my business' is a lesser concern to me since I lead a pretty boring life. I ask Siri questions all the time. I use a store card when I purchase groceries. I do a lot of google searches. I am "on the grid". I'm not hard for any algorithm to profile (and market to).
But to a larger extent, a society with only digital currency allows for more control over the population (us). It prevents us from accepting or distributing currency without authorization (approval).
In theory, if we had a completely digital currency, "the government" could prevent me from purchasing something for "reasons" (ex: My transaction to purchase a Snickers bar is rejected at the checkout because I'm on Medicare and I've been diagnosed with diabetes). Do you want "the government" and "your bank" to know every time you buy a weed gummy, get a lapper, or buy shotgun shells (and potentially take action based upon those purchases)? If I take five grand out of my savings account for a foot massage from Dua Lipa, that's my business.
I know that's all very 'tin-foil-hat-ish' but a fully digital currency allows for a lot of potential badness that isn't possible with the existence of an (essentially) untraceable currency source.
SFBayDuck
Footballguy
Is that the going rate? Asking for a friend......
rockaction
Footballguy
No, it’s not tin-foil. It’s exactly what they’re seeking to do and why the pushback by free societies against it is so great. See what Trudeau did with Canada’s version of digi currency and the trucker protests. As soon as he was able to stop the protests using executive emergency authority, he cut off the truckers’ sources of income.
It was the biggest violation of Western civil liberties we’ve had since Clapper perjured himself before Congress and they didn’t immediately subpoena him after Snowden had proof he lied.
THEY—yes, they—are seeking to assert control at every turn. And I don’t need any snark analysis about it because I sat and took time off of this very board to read what countries have going in the works. Digital currency will be a disaster for all businesses in both grey and black markets. You might not care about them. Fine. It’ll be a disaster for businesses in regulated markets, too.
Biden had to come out and announce a bunch of times already that we weren’t moving to digital currency because the government was switching to real-time transfers of income (after hours for institutions). People, including some of the most important investors in our economy, are worried about this.
So no, Statorama, it’s not tin-foilish of you to worry about this. In fact, it’s the only thing keeping them from proceeding apace with it. Your rights might exist in some theoretical world as far as the grounding of the Constitution goes, but in reality your rights only exist to the point where you can actively exercise them.
I once heard a very bright young man say that. We called him Sleazy Steve because . . . well, because. But that’s a very handy way to look at things pragmatically.
Last edited:
New Binky the Doormat
Footballguy
some super ungood and very dangerous ******** goin' on here ....
this could devastate all of our life savings
this could devastate all of our life savings
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Nothing if not predictable
Sand
Footballguy
This really isn't a privacy issue, so maybe better in the Bitcoin thread.
New Binky the Doormat
Footballguy
I don't see a recent active thread with the bitcoin bros. I' rather have an active discussion about the implications of this to idea of all our savings that aren't in bitcoin. How about the retire soon thread?
Sand
Footballguy
New Binky the Doormat
Footballguy
did you watch the clip?
It's about the impact of these moves on the value of the dollar than it is about the nuances of bitcoin itself.
SFBayDuck
Footballguy
The American people decided to willingly put oligarchs in power. Guess we’re going to find out how that goes for us in terms of privacy and a host of other areas.
did you watch the clip?
It's about the impact of these moves on the value of the dollar than it is about the nuances of bitcoin itself.
Sand
Footballguy
I did. I don't see how a reserve with 5% of outstanding BTC moves the needle at all.
did you watch the clip?
It's about the impact of these moves on the value of the dollar than it is about the nuances of bitcoin itself.
New Binky the Doormat
Footballguy
I did. I don't see how a reserve with 5% of outstanding BTC moves the needle at all.
did you watch the clip?
It's about the impact of these moves on the value of the dollar than it is about the nuances of bitcoin itself.
appreciate your take
Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
Maybe? Not to get political, but how many people in elected office in Washington would reign in the oligarchs? 5 out of 538 maybe? I’m not sure the public has truly consented to a lot of the decisions the federal government has made.The American people decided to willingly put oligarchs in power. Guess we’re going to find out how that goes for us in terms of privacy and a host of other areas.
did you watch the clip?
It's about the impact of these moves on the value of the dollar than it is about the nuances of bitcoin itself.
Sand
Footballguy
Rein in? They get Medals of Freedom.Maybe? Not to get political, but how many people in elected office in Washington would reign in the oligarchs?The American people decided to willingly put oligarchs in power. Guess we’re going to find out how that goes for us in terms of privacy and a host of other areas.
did you watch the clip?
It's about the impact of these moves on the value of the dollar than it is about the nuances of bitcoin itself.
Sand
Footballguy
Here are the effects of buying sensitive equipment from Chinese companies - patient monitors send health data back to China.
(And you wonder why classified briefings on TikTok caused such dramatic action in Congress.)
(And you wonder why classified briefings on TikTok caused such dramatic action in Congress.)
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Given the things going on the past two weeks, how is this thread not front and center?!?!?!?
You guys are slipping!!
You guys are slipping!!
Sand
Footballguy
Because I want to keep it open!
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
then it's just old guys "get off my lawn" stuff that means very little in the grand scheme of things. NONE of what has been talked about in here thus far comes close to being as problematic
Sand
Footballguy
More problematic than US Treasury employees with read only access looking into all the payments of the US govt.? Nah, doesn't rise to the top at all.
The above was quoted directly from the Treasury secretary, BTW. Go listen to his interview. Evidently the stories about DOGE employees doing this were false. The stories of DOGE changing code base were also false - the UST doesn't even do that, the Fed does. I'm shocked the legacy media has gone back to lying their asses off again.
This is more a story about the outright deceit of the media than anything else.
Sand
Footballguy
Given recent history we know that these folks won't hesitate to blatantly lie, so I'm rejecting these guys first. I'll give the Treasury sec. the benefit of the doubt on his first interview.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
If you're not going to trust the "legacy media" (you probably shouldn't...US media is pretty bad) why on earth would you trust the administration accused of the impropriety and their explanations? Either way, the rather obvious concern is private citizens who are unauthorized by federal law to have access to our private info having access to our private info....whether it's "read only" or not (I have no idea what level of access they were given) is completely irrelevant. "Read access" is more than enough access to cause a lot of problems.
Imagine me coming to you and saying "meh, it's no big deal. All China had was read access" in just about ANY of the situations mentioned in this thread
SFBayDuck
Footballguy
Given recent history we know that these folks won't hesitate to blatantly lie, so I'm rejecting these guys first.
See the conundrum?
ETA to soften any political edge: cross off "the current" above and put "any"
Last edited:
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
In my short time on this earth, I have yet to be provided a meaningful body of work from either group (our media or politicians and their friends) that would allow me to default to trusting them from the start.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/elons-doge-boy-resigned-apparently-154331494.html
One of Elon Musk's lackeys at his DOGE group, Marko Elez, unexpectedly resigned on Thursday after the Wall Street Journal revealed a litany of extremely racist social media posts he'd apparently made shortly before joining the team.
The exact reason for his abrupt departure remains unclear. However, as Wired reports, White House officials seem to have provided incorrect information about Elez only being given "read-only" permissions to the US Treasury codebase, hinting at the possibility that he could have been in trouble for things other than the egregiously racist posts linked to his departure.
According to Wired, Elez did in fact have write access, allowing him to push unvetted and untested changes straight to the Treasury's payments system — a nightmare scenario that could introduce all sorts of cybersecurity vulnerabilities and leave doors open for adversary hacker groups.
================================================================================
Adding to the ominous signs around Elez' activity and departure, the blog Talking Points Memo reported this week that Elez had made "extensive changes" to the system before his write access was revoked on February 5. In other words, it sounds a lot like White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was either intentionally or unintentionally obfuscating the truth by claiming that Elez only had "read" permissions.
One of Elon Musk's lackeys at his DOGE group, Marko Elez, unexpectedly resigned on Thursday after the Wall Street Journal revealed a litany of extremely racist social media posts he'd apparently made shortly before joining the team.
The exact reason for his abrupt departure remains unclear. However, as Wired reports, White House officials seem to have provided incorrect information about Elez only being given "read-only" permissions to the US Treasury codebase, hinting at the possibility that he could have been in trouble for things other than the egregiously racist posts linked to his departure.
According to Wired, Elez did in fact have write access, allowing him to push unvetted and untested changes straight to the Treasury's payments system — a nightmare scenario that could introduce all sorts of cybersecurity vulnerabilities and leave doors open for adversary hacker groups.
================================================================================
Adding to the ominous signs around Elez' activity and departure, the blog Talking Points Memo reported this week that Elez had made "extensive changes" to the system before his write access was revoked on February 5. In other words, it sounds a lot like White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was either intentionally or unintentionally obfuscating the truth by claiming that Elez only had "read" permissions.
Sand
Footballguy
I'm still pissed about the OPM hack that gave away my private information to the Chinese. So, yeah, no I wouldn't be happy with this.
Imagine me coming to you and saying "meh, it's no big deal. All China had was read access" in just about ANY of the situations mentioned in this thread
That said when the UST sec. says that the people accessing these payment systems are Treasury employees I'd default to him being correct before jumping to conclusions that he's blowing smoke up our butts.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
So we are in the "distrust everyone" phase where we don't know what's real, what's spin, and what's outright fabrication (propaganda).
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I hope you're right, but I sincerely fear you're wrong.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
I get it...your approach is different than mine. None of these yahoos get my trust by default. Has to be earned. I don't see much of a difference between our government and outside governments in terms of trust either.I'm still pissed about the OPM hack that gave away my private information to the Chinese. So, yeah, no I wouldn't be happy with this.
Imagine me coming to you and saying "meh, it's no big deal. All China had was read access" in just about ANY of the situations mentioned in this thread
That said when the UST sec. says that the people accessing these payment systems are Treasury employees I'd default to him being correct before jumping to conclusions that he's blowing smoke up our butts.
Sand
Footballguy
Right with you. I'm just hoping the very first thing the guy says is going to be accurate.
---
And that's the last I'll comment on that as I'd like to keep this thread open. I think we've stayed to the "privacy and who do we trust" side of things than politics, but don't want to wander into verboten areas.
Last edited:
fatness
Footballguy
The most detailed article I've read concerning access to Treasury's payment system: https://archive.ph/btFuf
It's a long read and informative so I won't try to summarize the whole thing.
This seems to be the main bone of contention:
It's a long read and informative so I won't try to summarize the whole thing.
This seems to be the main bone of contention:
This makes me feel better about the situation 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/musk-doge-teen-fired-cybersecurity-194133008.html
Afterward, Coristine wrote that he’d retained access to the cybersecurity company’s computers, though he said he hadn’t taken advantage of it.
“I had access to every single machine,” he wrote on Discord in late 2022, weeks after he was dismissed from Path Network, according to messages seen by Bloomberg. Posting under the name “Rivage,” which six people who know him said was his alias, Coristine said he could have wiped Path’s customer-supporting servers if he’d wished. He added, "I never exploited it because it's just not me."
His comments, made in a Discord server focused on another competitor company, worried executives at Path Network, who believed there was no legitimate reason for a former employee to access their machines, according to a person familiar with the incident. The person asked not to be named, citing the sensitivity of the matter.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/musk-doge-teen-fired-cybersecurity-194133008.html
Afterward, Coristine wrote that he’d retained access to the cybersecurity company’s computers, though he said he hadn’t taken advantage of it.
“I had access to every single machine,” he wrote on Discord in late 2022, weeks after he was dismissed from Path Network, according to messages seen by Bloomberg. Posting under the name “Rivage,” which six people who know him said was his alias, Coristine said he could have wiped Path’s customer-supporting servers if he’d wished. He added, "I never exploited it because it's just not me."
His comments, made in a Discord server focused on another competitor company, worried executives at Path Network, who believed there was no legitimate reason for a former employee to access their machines, according to a person familiar with the incident. The person asked not to be named, citing the sensitivity of the matter.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Spool results.txt;
Select * from table x;
Spool off;
Rinse/repeat until all tables accounted for.....read only access
Select * from table x;
Spool off;
Rinse/repeat until all tables accounted for.....read only access
Sand
Footballguy
To get this back to current news on this front - the UK has demanded that Apple create a backdoor for access to users' encrypted space. Don't worry, I'm sure hackers will never get the keys to that backdoor like they did into the US telecoms. 
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Hackers make their own keys. They don't need Apple to do it for them.
fatness
Footballguy
If you want to get angry at non-legal, extra-legal, or just plain illegal government surveillance, there's an in-depth article on the state of Vermont having a secret tracking list of "problem parents", getting all the records of their medical care, interfering during one pregnancy while birth was happening, and being granted custody of the fetus before it was born.
vtdigger.org
When I started reading the article I figured that the mother was probably dangerous, that the state was looking out for an infant-to-be, reasons that might be valid for monitoring and intervening. Vermont has a policy that says they can intervene in cases of 'parent or caretaker has a substantial history with DCF.' " There's no law supporting that policy, though.
Turns out that the mom's "substantial history with DCF" was described as "an incident — when A.V. was 16 — of 'a physical altercation' with A.V.’s father and allegations that she herself was abused by a parent." That's it. She was 32 when she delivered the baby and the state took it from her. It took her 7 months to regain custody, which she did because “no court ever found that she lacked parental capacity.”
The details of how the state got all her health records on a minute-to minute basis are just horrible. All because she was on a list due to a physical incident with her dad 16 years prior to giving birth.
Vermont ACLU claims state conducts ‘surveillance and brazen intervention’ into Vermonters’ pregnancies - VTDigger
A new lawsuit alleges that the Department for Children and Families took extreme and illegal actions to monitor a pregnant woman without her knowledge and secure custody of her newborn — part of what the ACLU calls a “broader, troubling pattern.”
vtdigger.org
When I started reading the article I figured that the mother was probably dangerous, that the state was looking out for an infant-to-be, reasons that might be valid for monitoring and intervening. Vermont has a policy that says they can intervene in cases of 'parent or caretaker has a substantial history with DCF.' " There's no law supporting that policy, though.
Turns out that the mom's "substantial history with DCF" was described as "an incident — when A.V. was 16 — of 'a physical altercation' with A.V.’s father and allegations that she herself was abused by a parent." That's it. She was 32 when she delivered the baby and the state took it from her. It took her 7 months to regain custody, which she did because “no court ever found that she lacked parental capacity.”
The details of how the state got all her health records on a minute-to minute basis are just horrible. All because she was on a list due to a physical incident with her dad 16 years prior to giving birth.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
that's horrible and should be 100% illegal.If you want to get angry at non-legal, extra-legal, or just plain illegal government surveillance, there's an in-depth article on the state of Vermont having a secret tracking list of "problem parents", getting all the records of their medical care, interfering during one pregnancy while birth was happening, and being granted custody of the fetus before it was born.
Vermont ACLU claims state conducts ‘surveillance and brazen intervention’ into Vermonters’ pregnancies - VTDigger
A new lawsuit alleges that the Department for Children and Families took extreme and illegal actions to monitor a pregnant woman without her knowledge and secure custody of her newborn — part of what the ACLU calls a “broader, troubling pattern.”
When I started reading the article I figured that the mother was probably dangerous, that the state was looking out for an infant-to-be, reasons that might be valid for monitoring and intervening. Vermont has a policy that says they can intervene in cases of 'parent or caretaker has a substantial history with DCF.' " There's no law supporting that policy, though.
Turns out that the mom's "substantial history with DCF" was described as "an incident — when A.V. was 16 — of 'a physical altercation' with A.V.’s father and allegations that she herself was abused by a parent." That's it. She was 32 when she delivered the baby and the state took it from her. It took her 7 months to regain custody, which she did because “no court ever found that she lacked parental capacity.”
The details of how the state got all her health records on a minute-to minute basis are just horrible. All because she was on a list due to a physical incident with her dad 16 years prior to giving birth.
This is the stuff that our leaders should care about!
Sand
Footballguy
Absolutely outrageous.If you want to get angry at non-legal, extra-legal, or just plain illegal government surveillance, there's an in-depth article on the state of Vermont having a secret tracking list of "problem parents", getting all the records of their medical care, interfering during one pregnancy while birth was happening, and being granted custody of the fetus before it was born.
Vermont ACLU claims state conducts ‘surveillance and brazen intervention’ into Vermonters’ pregnancies - VTDigger
A new lawsuit alleges that the Department for Children and Families took extreme and illegal actions to monitor a pregnant woman without her knowledge and secure custody of her newborn — part of what the ACLU calls a “broader, troubling pattern.”
When I started reading the article I figured that the mother was probably dangerous, that the state was looking out for an infant-to-be, reasons that might be valid for monitoring and intervening. Vermont has a policy that says they can intervene in cases of 'parent or caretaker has a substantial history with DCF.' " There's no law supporting that policy, though.
Turns out that the mom's "substantial history with DCF" was described as "an incident — when A.V. was 16 — of 'a physical altercation' with A.V.’s father and allegations that she herself was abused by a parent." That's it. She was 32 when she delivered the baby and the state took it from her. It took her 7 months to regain custody, which she did because “no court ever found that she lacked parental capacity.”
The details of how the state got all her health records on a minute-to minute basis are just horrible. All because she was on a list due to a physical incident with her dad 16 years prior to giving birth.
rockaction
Footballguy
These things are done with their imprimatur. What makes us think we can trust them once they've done stuff like this? The people in charge need to be accountable to the people (us civvies). This is how you inculcate a level of distrust in government that's hard to return from and restore.
Ironically—and to your post's emphasis, the DCF probably operates out of the executive branch, and things like this happening as a function of bureaucratic overreach are why certain people want to roll back the administrative state (I take no position on the matter; I'm just noting the position here is salient to this very instance). This is not to say that the current way of rolling back the state is fair or efficacious or not arbitrary and capricious. It's to say that people have been warning about unaccountable executive agencies for a long, long time, and this is a good example of that.
Last edited:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I hear that, especially as the power and control is consolidated. But what about the unelected bureaucrats that are doing the rollbacks? Who will hold them accountable for their "arbitrary and capricious" actions? What if those actions aren't arbitrary at all and favor themselves or their cronies? But I digress.
Back on topic. The lack of interest and concern shown by a) the citizenry, and b) our leadership about individual privacy is very troubling. I don't know how to combat it.
rockaction
Footballguy
Your point is why I included that they might be unwise, illegal, or arbitrary. “Arbitrary and capricious” has a different meaning as a legal term of art. Cronyism and self-dealing is illegal. It is likely also under the rubric of being arbitrary and capricious, although I am no expert. But that’s the language the judges are already using, so you add that up.
Who will enforce the law? Courts, Congress, and other elected officials might have to step up and make sure the laws are enforced. We know how impeachment went last time and we know how the courts will handle criminal cases brought against the head of the executive. They will grant immunity. So we do not know how the courts will act if the executive acts in contravention of court orders.
If laws or court orders are not enforced and the executive actions are illegal but unpunished by any branch of government, the last check is government disobedience at lower levels of governance and then civil disobedience and or mob justice.
Somebody will blink eventually. We were founded by revolution and have one civil war down. Seems not out of the realm of possibility for a second one (albeit a nearly farcical and very improbable one). Unwinding the admin state is a reactionary proposition, and those proposals usually end poorly for their adherents. Usually.
Back to privacy.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I believe your thinking to be clear on this one (for once
), Rock. I am also interested in state-level actions that are similar. There is less freedom for state governors to act unilaterally and they can be held more accountable through the courts, IMO.But I don't know how to wake up the citizenry that trading privacy for ease or privacy for laziness is a bad idea. I truly feel that the US is on the cusp of tipping over into a surveillance state that matches our authoritarian peers like China. Maybe the US version is a "public-private partnership" to serve the interests of the state as well as corporations, but it all portends badly IMO.
rockaction
Footballguy
If I knew how to wake us up, I’d do it. But I honestly don’t. You’re correct in your worry (not quoted by me here) that the U. S. might have public/private surveillance arrangements that would and will be a disaster. Electronic communications and the FISA Courts are already that way. That’s part of who Snowden caught in surveillance acts. Secret court orders spying on citizens. Awful stuff.
Sand
Footballguy
IoT company gets jacked for 2.7 billion records.
www.techradar.com
Maybe we don't need our LED lights and toasters hooked to the web?
Massive online data breach sees 2.7 billion records leaked - here's what we know
Billions of records leaked in major breach
Maybe we don't need our LED lights and toasters hooked to the web?
Last edited:
fatness
Footballguy
According to this Washington Post article, it's not clear if this access has been granted yet or not.
"Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service is seeking access to a heavily-guarded Internal Revenue Service system that includes detailed financial information about every taxpayer, business and nonprofit in the country, according to two people familiar with the activities, sparking alarm within the tax agency. Under pressure from the White House, the IRS is considering a memorandum of understanding that would give DOGE officials broad access to tax-agency systems, property and datasets. Among them is the Integrated Data Retrieval System, or IDRS, which enables tax agency employees to access IRS accounts — including personal identification numbers — and bank information. It also lets them enter and adjust transaction data and automatically generate notices, collection documents and other records.
IDRS access is extremely limited — taxpayers who have had their information wrongfully disclosed or even inspected are entitled by law to monetary damages — and the request for DOGE access has raised deep concern within the IRS, according to three people familiar with internal agency deliberations who, like others in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. It was unclear Sunday evening whether acting IRS commissioner Doug O’Donnell or other IRS or Treasury Department officials had granted IDRS access."
"Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service is seeking access to a heavily-guarded Internal Revenue Service system that includes detailed financial information about every taxpayer, business and nonprofit in the country, according to two people familiar with the activities, sparking alarm within the tax agency. Under pressure from the White House, the IRS is considering a memorandum of understanding that would give DOGE officials broad access to tax-agency systems, property and datasets. Among them is the Integrated Data Retrieval System, or IDRS, which enables tax agency employees to access IRS accounts — including personal identification numbers — and bank information. It also lets them enter and adjust transaction data and automatically generate notices, collection documents and other records.
IDRS access is extremely limited — taxpayers who have had their information wrongfully disclosed or even inspected are entitled by law to monetary damages — and the request for DOGE access has raised deep concern within the IRS, according to three people familiar with internal agency deliberations who, like others in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. It was unclear Sunday evening whether acting IRS commissioner Doug O’Donnell or other IRS or Treasury Department officials had granted IDRS access."
I don't understand why anyone would connect these types of things to their WiFi. Most of these things I don't connect at all. In some cases, I do connect certain things where the functionality is actually useful, but I connect them to my guest network.IoT company gets jacked for 2.7 billion records.
Massive online data breach sees 2.7 billion records leaked - here's what we know
Billions of records leaked in major breach
Maybe we don't need our LED lights and toasters hooked to the web?
Pro Tip (that most here probably already know): on most routers, connecting devices to your guest network prevents the devices from seeing/talking to each other or to devices on your primary network.
Sand
Footballguy
When it gets down to it I don't think there is any actual utility to having the vast majority of these things live to the web. What do you get out of it, really?I don't understand why anyone would connect these types of things to their WiFi. Most of these things I don't connect at all. In some cases, I do connect certain things where the functionality is actually useful, but I connect them to my guest network.IoT company gets jacked for 2.7 billion records.
Massive online data breach sees 2.7 billion records leaked - here's what we know
Billions of records leaked in major breach
Maybe we don't need our LED lights and toasters hooked to the web?
Pro Tip (that most here probably already know): on most routers, connecting devices to your guest network prevents the devices from seeing/talking to each other or to devices on your primary network.
I think the only one I have live to the web is the TV. And I can't think of any other IoT device that I would really get something positive out of being always hooked into the net.
Similar threads
- Locked
