9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records

reply to post by King Loki


A government database is not a "public" area. Financial information is not "public" information.

These people didn't get arrested because they looked at a file sitting on the desk...the accessed someones file without authorization...in fact the article says they accessed the computer without authorization.


It just baffles me that you think this information is public. Why do you think that exactly?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher



well you can answer that question for me .. who owns the Internet ?? because this information would be held on it and only the owner of the Internet would be able to charge some one for the miss use of it.


i dunno if you will go back a page to read my last reply so ill re post it here for you

show me the law that says i cannot look at information in a public area ???

what your saying is that if i see the registration number of some ones car on their number plate when their car is parked in a public area that i have broken the law because i have looked ( you say taken now) their registration number which is their private information and also held on a government site ????????

[edit on 13/5/10 by King Loki]

reply to post by King Loki


Let me try again. Information is property. They did not steal this from grafitti on a chair. They illegally stole the information off a computer. Not from a vacant lot. They had to use a key provided to them and knew they were breaking the law when they did it.

Your example is totally irrelevant to the facts here.

No, acquiring that phone number from the theoretical chair is not wrong or illegal. Breaking through the security on a computer to access data illegally is wrong and illegal.

They did not just happen to see it. They knowingly violated the law, used a password entrusted to them and broke into information it was illegal for them to view or obtain.

It's same as if a person who works at the bank you use were to access your data and steal it. They could then steal your identity and thats why its illegal as its personal information. Even if they just happen to see it, its still a crime if they write it down or print it and possess it. It is stealing as surely as if they broke down the door to your home to take your chair. That's why hackers are getting twenty years. Just protecting information from thieves costs billions a year.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I'm simply stating that a couple months ago everyone who didn't like Obama used his poll numbers...and now since those are not supporting an anti-Obama agenda right now they are switching to personal experience to predict his downfall.

I don't know if he will get re-elected...a lot of people that voted for Bush the first time said they would never vote for him again...and he got re-elected just fine.

I get accused of being partisan because I have been supporting policies of Obama's that I agree with...but I don't agree with Obama about everything. Cap and Trade, Abortion, Afganistan...there are plenty more...but I agreed more with Obama than I ddi with McCain...and I agreed with him on what I deemed the more important issues (Healthcare, Economy, Foreign Policy, Immigration). You can fault me for sticking to my beliefs if you want...but I don't support everything Obama stands for.

I know you think he is "destroying our country"...but I just don't see proof of that. Others have said he is raising taxes...most people paid lower taxes this year than under Bush...he is destroying our economy and yet it is recovering....I just don't understand the accusations that have no facts behind them. I 100% believe that we are better off with Obama than we would be with McCain/Palin...no one can ever convince me otherwise.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

reply to post by King Loki


Government computers are not a public area. Where did you get such an idea. Your computer is not a public area. People who without permission go onto other computer are CRIMINALS.

reply to post by Blaine91555



wouldn't you have to copy write or trade mark the exact wording of this document for it to become property ???

reply to post by King Loki


Nothing is stored "on the internet"...the internet is a communication system...not a storage system.

All the information you see on the internet is on someones private server. They may choose to let people view everything they have...or they may make it private with passwords, firewalls, private networks.

Honestly....think of it as a road system connecting houses and buildings...some are private houses (homes and some businesses) and some are public (libraries, stores, policy stations, etc.). You can travel the road all you want...but you can't enter any house just because it is on the road. If someone hangs a document outside their home on a billboard...sure...look at it all you want. But if you know that there is a file sitting in a house...and you want to see it...it is still illegal to go in that house without permission and look at the file. It doesn't matter if you took the file...entering the house is illegal.

I can't explain it any more simple than that...you just seem confused as to what is private and what is public information and also confused as to what the "internet" is.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by King Loki

 

Government computers are not a public area. Where did you get such an idea. Your computer is not a public area. People who without permission go onto other computer are CRIMINALS.

once you connect your computer to the world wide web you are placing whatever information you put there in a public area ... that would be just like me saying i can charge you with a crime for reading this post because i originally typed it up on my personal computer before i posted it here on the net ?? and therefore my property

[edit on 13/5/10 by King Loki]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


but if no one owns the land (internet) those houses are on public property and therefore it would not be illegal to look through the windows, you don't need a password to get into a data base there are plenty of ways to proverbially look through the windows of a site from a public domain.

are you confusing the Internet with an intranet ?

[edit on 13/5/10 by King Loki]

[edit on 13/5/10 by King Loki]

This is against the law to do to anyone's records. People DO GET ARRESTED FOR THIS CRIME EVERY DAY. The only way in which this one is different is that they looked at Obama's records, so the press took notice.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I'm assuming you have the same feelings towards illegal immigrants....right? They are just doing what they feel is right for their families...a much better cause then trying to prove a internet rumor.

No. And that is why I try to stay away from the 'IT'S THE LAW!' argument so many others resort to in the immigration debate. My opinion on it is also logic based and what is best for the country. In that instance, the law happens to support my personal feelings.

For instance, it has been shown the economic drain and social system strain that illegal immigration causes host countries. I see that as harmful to the country's well being.

In this case of the indicted, the reason I support them is because they were looking into something that they felt could be harmful.

Also, just like I would be concerned with illegal immigrants being the recipient of overly harsh penalties, I feel this group is facing overly harsh penalties.

So my views on both matters are consistent and not contradictory.

Originally posted by King Loki

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by King Loki

 

Government computers are not a public area. Where did you get such an idea. Your computer is not a public area. People who without permission go onto other computer are CRIMINALS.

once you connect your computer to the world wide web you are placing whatever information you put there in a public area ... that would be just like me saying i can charge you with a crime for reading this post because i originally typed it up on my personal computer in before i posted it here on the net ?? and therefore my property

Oh my god, why aren't you understanding this concept? Not everything on the internet is meant for the public. How about this, order something online, give me your credit card # and I'll post it here.

Wait, that's private? Yes, it certainly is.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


thats why you don't put that info on the net, i wouldn't give you my credit card details just like i wouldn't put them on the Internet ... how is it legal for company's to sell your information to other company's if this isn't public information ???? sounds pretty simple to me .. are you guys confusing the Internet with an intranet


internet would be like a public park where an intranet would be a building with no windows and gaurds at the doors ... im guessing this is what you guys are really saying ???

[edit on 13/5/10 by King Loki]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
Obama the man has a right to privacy, but as soon as he became employed by the people, his records should have become public.

So glad that so many people have no clue how America actually works. Obama does NOT work for you.

You can not write him up.
You can not suspend him.
You can not deny him a raise.
You can not approve or deny vacation requests.
You can not have him into your office for a "corrective" chat.
You can not fire him.
You can not set his scedule.
You can not decide his tasks.
You can not declare his salary as one of your tax expenses.
You can not etc...

YOU ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT'S EMPLOYER.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Thanks for providing just about all the evidence required to prove that obama is now the dictator so many of you on the left were so afraid Bush would become.

LMAO!!!!!

Look at all the stars you got for calling America a dictatorship from the start.

Does that list not apply to Bush? Clinton? Bush? Reagan? Washington?



So if that list means that Obama is a dictator then it means that every president before him WAS ALSO a dictator. Nice logic!

Obama is "above" all of us. He asks people to swear allegiance to himself and not the country (recall the infamous "I swear" video). You are criminally charged if you try to look at anything in his past. He is free to repeatedly say one thing and do another and anyone who doesn't like it is a racist and/or a terrorist.

Where are yours posts in protest of George W. and his "free speech zones?" What about Koppel getting fired for revealing Bush's military record? Can you offer me a link?

Yes, presidents hide stuff and expect stuff. They all do. Everything you just said can be applied to each and every president we have ever had so either you think they were all dictators or you are just saying any anti-Obama nonsense you can think up.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Also, just like I would be concerned with illegal immigrants being the recipient of overly harsh penalties, I feel this group is facing overly harsh penalties.

I think it's worth pointing out again that the penalties mentioned in the OP's linked article are the maximum penalties for the statute violated, and there's no evidence yet that they would receive the maximum assuming that they are tried and found guilty (or plea guilty).

I would hope that in the case that they are found guilty, the sentence would be in line with what is usually handed out in similar cases that don't involve the POTUS -- I'm sure there's no shortage of cases that could be used as reference, I know that I've seen numerous articles about people for instance accessing various celebrities's health and hospitalization records, and I'm sure such cases are dwarfed in number by those that never show up in the press because they don't involve public figures.

edit to add:

In terms of the "ends justify the means" argument, I think that in order to be valid, those involved must accept all the results of their actions, including the punishment. It may be morally defensible to break the law for a higher cause, but only if you're willing to accept the legal consequences for your actions.

[edit on 5/13/2010 by americandingbat]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


the question is why are you even replying to his post but not answering the questions he was asking ... deflecting a question onto another topic is not answering the questing mate, if he asked a question about obama, asking why he didn't ask the same about some one else is pretty retarded imo, and a clear indication you cannot answer the question .. or you would have.

just answer the question he asked or admit you cannot and move on.

[edit on 13/5/10 by King Loki]

reply to post by americandingbat

I think it's worth pointing out again that the penalties mentioned in the OP's linked article are the maximum penalties for the statute violated, and there's no evidence yet that they would receive the maximum assuming that they are tried and found guilty (or plea guilty).

Correct. Only time will tell what actually happens. If the book is thrown at them to the utter extent of the law and they receive the maximum penalties, I will be pretty surprised. I don't see that happening.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
If you're willing to pay the service fee on a background check website, then yes. If you know how to research these things you could have the history of my family dating back hundreds of years.

If it is that simple then why not pay the same money, do the same check on Obama and be done with it?

Obama is no longer a private citizen, his history should be open to those who pay his salary. He rules by our consent, he is our employee

You do not pay his salary. If you pay taxes, he president gets paid. If you fail to pay taxes, the president gets paid. If you scam the IRS and make illegal money through tax schemes, the president still gets paid. You cannot withhold his pay. You cannot reduce his wages.

He does not rule by our consent. He was elected by our consent to do HIS job. You have representatives that are supposed to REPRESENT you and confer with higher government so that the entirety of it moves to serve the people; ALL THE PEOPLE - NOT JUST YOU.

He is not our employee unless you can present a solid argument otherwise.

There seems to be a huge misconception in this thread between what a public servant does and what a public servant IS.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Oh, I'm in complete agreement with you, just making a joke.

My appologies. I guess if I had been paying attention I could have caught that as it is clear where you stand on the issue.