Scary

[devin0116]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM30nqfasyU

[TruBlu]

Mr. Beck isn't exactly the best source of information. Do some research on it first and then vote. The average consumer will not be logging into this site, they have no reason to. This system is in place for dealers who will be, well dealing, the ones that the money for your 'clunker' will be going to. If the US government is going to be handing out money for a revamp of the auto market, then it still retains it's right to know what's going on with it. Question: "Why does the government (more specifically USDOT) need a disclaimer that encompasses the entirety of your computer?" Why do you think? They need the ability to track the money, and with that comes the ability to see anything else, it's simple. Computers are just that, they speak in one's and zero's and having the ability to take a look at one file means they have the ability to look at all, so they need to protect themselves and say, "Hey, we can see your stuff, use at your own risk."

Bottom line: Beck has spun it like a dreidel come Hanukkah. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, they tell you upfront.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM30nqfasyU

Who cares?

The NSA could do that without warning you about it.

If you have nothing to hide, then why are you worried about it?

[devin0116]

I saw this on another forum, so I did the same poll and such here. I have njothing to hide, but I don't believe if this is constitutional. Correct me if I am wrong.

[fjer]

I saw this on another forum, so I did the same poll and such here. I have njothing to hide, but I don't believe if this is constitutional. Correct me if I am wrong.

If you agree to it, it's perfectly legal. On the matter of whether it is constitutional, that hinges on the whole program being constitutional. If you decide that the program somehow fits under "regulating" interstate commerce (which giving money should, IMO, clearly not), then the computer thing does too. If you decide that the program is unconstitutional, then elements such as this that fall under it are as well.

[PhoenixCadet]

...then it still retains it's right to know what's going on with it. Question: "Why does the government (more specifically USDOT) need a disclaimer that encompasses the entirety of your computer?" Why do you think? They need the ability to track the money, and with that comes the ability to see anything else, it's simple. Computers are just that, they speak in one's and zero's and having the ability to take a look at one file means they have the ability to look at all, so they need to protect themselves and say, "Hey, we can see your stuff, use at your own risk."

Is the information regarding the money being entered and stored on this online system? If so, why then would their disclaimer need to encompass the dealer's entire, company-owned computer?

When one logs onto any one of the armed forces information portals, they receive government disclaimers, as well, informing you of the general policies of using their specific information system - yet none of these say anything about your personal computer becoming government property.

The basic US Government disclaimer is as follows:

This is a Department of Defense computer system. This computer system, including all related equipment, networks and network devices (specifically including Internet access), are provided only for authorized U. S. Government use. DoD computer systems may be monitored for all lawful purposes, including to ensure that their use is authorized, for management of the system, to facilitate protection against unauthorized access, and to verify security procedures, survivability and operational security. Monitoring includes active attacks by authorized DoD entities to test or verify the security of this system. During monitoring, information may be examined, recorded, copied and used for authorized purposes. All information, including personal information, placed on or sent over this system may be monitored. Use of this DoD computer system, authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring of this system. Unauthorized use may subject you to criminal prosecution. Evidence of unauthorized use collected during monitoring may be used for administrative, criminal or adverse action. Use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring for these purposes.

Other informational disclaimers include:

YOU ARE ACCESSING A U.S. GOVERNMENT (USG) INFORMATION SYSTEM (IS) THAT IS PROVIDED FOR USG-AUTHORIZED USE ONLY.
By using this IS (which includes any device attached to this IS), you consent to the following conditions:

The USG routinely intercepts and monitors communications on this IS for purposes including, but not limited to, penetration testing, COMSEC monitoring, network operations and defense, personnel misconduct (PM), law enforcement (LE), and counterintelligence (CI) investigations.
At any time, the USG may inspect and seize data stored on this IS.
Communications using, or data stored on, this IS are not private, are subject to routine monitoring, interception, and search, and may be disclosed or used for any USG-authorized purpose.
This IS includes security measures (e.g., authentication and access controls) to protect USG interests--not for your personal benefit or privacy.
Notwithstanding the above, using this IS does not constitute consent to PM, LE or CI investigative searching or monitoring of the content of privileged communications, or work product, related to personal representation or services by attorneys, psychotherapists, or clergy, and their assistants. Such communications and work product are private and confidential. See User Agreement for details.

While I'm not on the whole "the earth's falling", conspiracy theorist-minded bandwagon, it does seem that they could've chosen different wording for their warnings.

-PC

[TruBlu]

Is the information regarding the money being entered and stored on this online system? If so, why then would their disclaimer need to encompass the dealer's entire, company-owned computer?

The disclaimer needs to encompass the entirety of the computer because of basic liabilities. The government is basically covering itself on all bases with their disclaimer, no matter how oddly (overdone maybe?) worded it is. They are saying that the ability to place session cookies and obtain information through other sessions (I guess Telnet?) means they have the ability to look at more than just their financial information regarding the CARS program. The wording may come off as a little upfront I guess, but is there really anything wrong with that? It's short and to the point, a clear cut warning for anyone who is going to access the system.

And just to hit it again, Beck and company are just trying to goad the general populace into thinking this is some government takeover of your personal computer: it's not. This system is set in place for the dealers who will receive the government funds and then, in turn, fix them into your new car deal. None of this has anything to do with the consumer's safety, nor should it scare anyone.

[C/ZOOMIE]

Who dares me to go to the site and click, "continue". =P

[PhoenixCadet]

Who dares me to go to the site and click, "continue". =P

You won't have that option unless you're a registered car dealer listed in their system.

[C/ZOOMIE]

^ Ah, I see..so...Who dares me to become a car dealer and then....

[fjer]

Dealer login for CARS isn't even on cars.gov, this is unfortunately a major spin job and misleading. I like a lot of Beck's stuff, but things like this cause him to loose credibility with anyone who doesn't already agree with him (and has at least moderate intelligence, but those people without will then be dissuaded by the next "hope and change" slogan).

He would be much better off spending time questioning the actual benefits of this program and its constitutionality. Government interference and "paths to socialism" are still scary enough for ratings (though a bit of hyperbole).

[fjer]

Beck did a follow up on that (here (http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=7767090&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50 204809c04)) that is a lot more straightforward and raises good points. The chief issue is that personal information of people who bought cars will be on those computers.

[TruBlu]

Beck did a follow up on that (here (http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=7767090&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50 204809c04)) that is a lot more straightforward and raises good points. The chief issue is that personal information of people who bought cars will be on those computers.

Definitely more strait forward, a lot less spin. But the bottom line still remains: The CARS program is for the dealers only. The dealers, if they sell a car using this program, need to take responsibility for their actions and secure their information accordingly. Any forfeiting of rights, intentionally or not, will lie upon those dealers that choose to do so. Now, as to the disclaimer, it needs to be replaced, if what has been said by Mr. Beck is actually true. Put the same thing up for all I care, so long as these dealers understand the gravity of the situation, if it really is as important as some make it out to be.

Thanks for keeping an eye on it fjer.