What is Digg?31 Comments
- gahzinia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39"The bill, SB1666, was written by state Sen. Debra Bowen, and would have barred investigators from making "false, fictitious or fraudulent" statements or representations to obtain private information about an individual, including telephone calling records, Social Security numbers and financial information. Victims would have had the right to sue for damages."
Wow. Just wow. How you can be against that law is beyond me. I wonder how those people that were lobbying against the law would feel if they were lied to to get their private information and if they'd still be against the law then. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19So then I assume the MPAA won't mind if 100M fake Californians vote against any state senators who caved to the MPAA?
- Pokez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18So, basically they bought themselves the ability to lie and retrieve info from people under false pretenses. Hmm....
- reeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17There needs to be a grass roots org to take down pretexting because it will be the little details that end real freedom in this country. Dammit, it always has to be the f'ed up suits that manage every ***** problem into a quagmire!
- critchmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16This is just another example of abuse of power at its best.
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Did you see 'thank you for smoking'? Flexible morals.
- bmurph83, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14This is disgusting - just plain disgusting.
- hammradio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The MPAA is strong in California. If similar legislation is brought in New York or Pennsylvania where the MPAA may not be as strong... it could have an affect. It's amazing that this failed.
1.) I don't know how this can be allowed by the PATRIOT ACT regulations.
2.) Allowing "pretexting" could open up the companies who reveal such information open to liability.
3.) How you can make FRAUD and IDENTITY THEFT legal, I have NO IDEA. - JAWS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"The MPAA has a tremendous amount of clout" is my favorite line from the article. The bill made it through the senate 30-0 but MPAA lobbied full tilt and so the bill was DOA when it hit the floor for the vote.
- info, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Why yes, because they "need to pose as someone other than who [they] are to stop illegal downloading."
;-) - hipstershaun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You are all missing the big picture. If that bill had passed Veronica Mars would be out of a job. Where are your priorities?
- bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@gnilrets:
No, this law would not have affected that. Pretexting only applies to lying about your identity in an attempt to obtain private information not normally available to you or to control something that doesn't belong to you. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Someone please explain to me why the MPAA should be allowed to pretend to be someone else in order to gain access to things like my Social Security number. How does that help the fight against piracy? It's time for someone to Big Stick the *AA's out of existence.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"No, this law would not have affected that. Pretexting only applies to lying about your identity in an attempt to obtain private information not normally available to you or to control something that doesn't belong to you."
Right, and what kind of information do you think an investigative reporter is scrounging around for? Certainly not public information. You can get that easily. It's the private information that's damning.
Just like every other tool out there: If it's used wrongly, people will pay for it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why are you Digging him down? I have always hated corporate lobbying, they just lobby in their own interests regardless of the impact on citizens. It IS disgusting!
- Praetorius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The MPAA is evil-incarnate. It's like they're possessed. They can't stop themselves.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They shouldn't but, as the investigator mentioned, the law wouldn't only apply to the MPAA. That's probably one reason why it didn't pass. If you read the whole article like I did, it appears that the bill wasn't carefully constructed to avoid some negative consequences for private investigators and the like.
- Qliphah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"There's a public reason and benefit for some of this information to be available to legitimate licensed investigators," Walsh said.
So if theres a license that needs to obtained then how does passing a law to prevent unlicensed individuals from using pretexting hurting the MPAA, NSA, or homeland security? - Krakn3Dfx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's a shame how we're losing our rights as Americans on one end out of fear of terrorist attacks and one the other end due to corporate corruption in the highest level of state and federal government. These are the battles that need to be fought and decided on by Americans, not abortion or gay marriage, issues like these are what chip away at our freedoms and privacy. If we lose on common sense issues like these, we'll lose on all of them.
- maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2lobbying makes the world go round
- donolsen1155, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How is pre-texting not considered illegal already is beyond me. Isn't it a form of fraud?
- Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is absolutely atrocious. My anger could twist steel.
- kilrathi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Figures. Another fine example of the crap-tastic country that corporations are making us live in.
- vguard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(False) "Pretexting" is just a nicer sounding word for lying or fraud.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ok that's 5 points for just commenting on digg
10 points for being against the MPAA.
20 points for just thinking about copying that DVD.
If I was you I would not fly anywhere as you just made the federal governments terrorist list! - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Curiously enough, not passing a law does not remove any rights that you already have. While it may have been good or bad (I don't know all the details) if nothing happens then you are no worse off than before. Perhaps you are currently poorly off, that is a perfectly valid argument for a new law, but don't argue a loss of rights.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Any law that allows more law suits than before must be a good law.
- pirotess, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Making "false, fictitious or fraudulent" statements or representations doesn't bother me as much as you have to be an "investigator" to be exempt from lawsuits. Anything important warrants that the end justifies the means of attaining it.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1If you were the MPAA what would you have done? Evil or not, one of their jobs is to defend themselves against copyright violations. If this bill prevents that then they are going to be against it. Simple.
What if someone stole your cell phone and you called it to find a person on the other end of the line? If you were a quick thinker you might tell them that they have just one a big prize and need to provide their mailing address for you to send it. It looks like this law would allow them to sue you. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2"Everyone wants a quick fix, but they don't see the ripple effect until much later," Walsh said. "Our organization has been successful at educating legislators by saying, 'Wait a minute, but look at how it effects X, Y and Z.' They have to see those tangents so that if they are going to go ahead and pass legislation, they do it in a responsible and educated way."
That's a good point. Maybe it wasn't ready. - gnilrets, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I'm against this law because it fundamentally restricts your liberty to create your own identity. Suppose I was a reporter and wanted to infiltrate the KKK to expose the ***** for what they are. I would likely have to "pretext" certain information about myself in order to be accepted.
The real problem is giving out your personal information to companies that so easily pass it on to others. We don't need a law, just some damn personal responsibility and consumer-enforced accountability.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is