Get d'Clu

Get a clue & wake up! The best way to lead a nation astray of its values is to keep it ignorant of its history.

Update – Govt Clunker Language Changed

Here is a long excerpt from Glenn Beck’s TV program tonight about the cash for clunkers program and the federal encroachment into our PCs and personal files contained therin (see my post below re & ‘What Privacy?’) when the dealers hit the “agree” button on the form.  Thanks to a canny watchdog and Glenn’s asserting the dastardly nature of this usurpation, the government realized we knew they made a mistake and they changed the wording on the agreement.  Good morning, sunshine!

Proof That You Can Affect Change

August 3, 2009 – 21:56 ET

Apparently, last Friday, I committed the ultimate sin in the liberal blogging world: I questioned a government program. “Cash for clunkers” had some Orwellian wording in it that was quite honestly, pretty creepy and just by bringing that up, the liberal blogs went nuts…

If disagreeing with creepy wording in the “cash for clunkers” is crazy, then apparently the government is crazy too — because they agreed with me.

Even though partisan hacks will tell you otherwise, there’s nothing wrong with demanding answers on these giant government programs, watching what the government is up to and holding them accountable is exactly what we should be doing.

I’ve been trying to wake people up on that front and through our constitutional watchdogs, I am seeing just how awake you guys really are. We’re getting so many leads — like the one in the “cash for clunkers” program. When dealers logged in to apply for the cash part of the “cash for clunkers” program, the site prompted them with the warning:

“This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and is property of the United States government… users have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy.”

“Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected and disclosed to authorized CARS, DOT and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

“By using this system, the user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying, auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion CARS or the DOT personnel.”

Why in God’s name would you click “accept” to that? I mean, other than you just sold a bunch of cars at a wildly discounted rate and need to make your money back.

Apparently, you and I aren’t the only ones who thought this was ridiculous… We received a statement today from the DOT and here it is:

“A security warning on the dealer support page that stated computers logged into the system were considered property of the federal government has been removed. We are working to revise the language. The language was posted on the portion of the Web site accessible by car dealers and not the general public.”

The blogs had a field day making fun of me — “Oh, that crazy Glenn Beck is at it again!’ But apparently, we must have a decent point, otherwise why would the government remove the old statement? Liberal bloggers spent another dateless weekend defending this crap and then the government agreed with us and changed the wording (emph mine).

Of course, questions remain unanswered: Why did they have that wording in the first place? We don’t know yet. But I’m confident we’ll find out, because today you proved that one person can make a difference.

Step back for a second and look what happened: White House policy was changed — not by me — but by one single person. One person who was so fed up with an out-of-control government they decided to be a constitutional watchdog and now things are changed for better.

Good job — keep it up.

______________________________ // ______________________________
8/06/09 update
Good comments discussion on American Missive  about how this was a dealer site, but still relevant.
______________________________ // ______________________________
As regards the 4th Amendment:
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment covered a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”, rather than solely on whether that person’s property had been intruded upon. *
* Friedman, Leon. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions,
Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Page 292.

August 4, 2009 - Posted by | (Un)Limited Government, 4th Amendment, Agenda of the Left, Leftists Criticize Conservatives, Politics, Wake Up | , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: