Public Service: Be Wary Of Digital Photocopiers
May 14, 2010 Political
If you take your personal documents to work or use a business that provides copying services then you are at risk for identity theft. Additionally, businesses are at risk of inadvertently disclosing a great deal of personally identifying information.
A CBS report shows that used copiers are resold and that they contain hard drives with images of documents that have been copied or scanned. The report shows how copiers from police departments contained information on suspects who were involved in drug and sex crimes. The report also shows how thousands of documents from a health care company were retrieved and those documents included medical information including test results, diagnoses, and social security numbers.
All of the information could easily be used by those engaged in identity theft and the report indicates that some of the copiers were bought by entities outside our country.
Technology exists to erase images from hard drives after a copy or scan is made. If you own a business you should insist on this for your machines.
If you are copying personal stuff you should insist on copiers that have the technology (I have used them and they indicate that the image is being erased).
Just a public service announcement from the Big Dog.
Now, if I can just figure out how to take care of the Nigerian scammers…
Sources:
CBS
Maniac World
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: cbs, digital photocopiers, hard drive, identity theft, images
Ben Nelson Should Have Waited
Jan 7, 2010 Political
Ben Nelson sold his political career in the US Senate for Obamacare. Nelson was opposed to provisions of the plan and eventually took a payoff to give his vote even though the payoff did not correct that to which he was opposed. It did, however, give him a provision that requires the rest of the country to pay the tab for Nebraska’s Medicare.
Ever since Nelson sold is soul for party politics his constituents have been letting him have an earful and he has been running around trying to explain why he sold out. Nelson is now saying that Democrats should have waited on health care and focused on the economy.
Mr. Nelson, YOU could have forced them to wait. You claim that Democrats should have waited but you had the power to slow down the process and allow the debate (such that it was with Republicans blocked out) to continue. You sold your vote and now you are trying to blame your party.
You are really a pathetic little man. You voted for the bill and regardless of the reason you should have the testicular fortitude to stand up and take responsibility for YOUR vote. The voters know why you did it so all the rationalizing in the world is not going to save you on this issue. Be a man and accept the responsibility for your actions. The only thing you have going for you is that you are not up for reelection until 2012 but I believe that will be the end of your time in the Senate. Nebraskans will not forget how you betrayed them and how you sold your vote in favor of party politics.
You folks in the great state of Nebraska need to keep pressure on this little man and hold him accountable. It did not take C-SPAN for Americans to see how Nelson betrayed is constituents.
Speaking of C-SPAN, CBS is now on the Obama is not transparent bandwagon. In a piece entitled, Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency, CBS reports:
During the campaign, though, candidate Obama regularly promised something different – to broadcast all such negotiations on C-SPAN, putting the entire process of pounding out health care reform out in the open. (That promise applied to the now-completed processing of forging House and Senate bills, too.)
Back when Republicans controlled Congress and George W. Bush was in the White House, it was Democrats who angrily complained about secret backroom deals.
Now the roles are reversed.
CBS and the rest of the Lame Stream Media carried the water for Obama and helped him get elected. He could not have gotten better treatment from them if he had paid them to campaign for him (and maybe he did) so it is interesting that CBS would point out this glaring lie that is Obama. But in a fashion for which the LSM is known, CBS comes to the table just a little bit late in the discussion. From the start of this debate it was obvious that it would not be transparent and that Democrats were hiding in rooms with the doors closed negotiating under cover of darkness. Democrats went extremely covert after Town Hall meetings in August where constituents let them have it with both barrels. Rather than address constituent concerns or take a new look, Democrats hunkered down in bunkers away from the public’s eye. Welcome to the party CBS, even if you are many months too late.
How long before you report on the moon landing?
As for cover of darkness, a Pennsylvania Democrat looking to unseat Arlen Specter, says that the blame for the drop in public support falls squarely on the Democrats.
Rep. Joe Sestak blames Democratic leaders for the plunge in public support for overhauling the health care system, saying Wednesday they failed to defend proposals that helped carry the party to victories in 2008.
“They said it would be transparent. Why isn’t it?” said Sestak, a Delaware County Democrat, in a meeting with Tribune-Review editors and reporters. “At times, I find the caucus is a real disappointment. We aren’t transparent, not just to the public but at times to the members.” Pittsburgh Tribune
CBS is pointing out the Democrat’s lack of transparency and a Democrat is pointing out the same thing and blaming it, in part, for the lack of support. When Republicans complain about the lack of transparency we are greeted with assurances that this has been the most transparent administration and Congress in history.
Evidently, some of their own are finding that the only transparency involved is how transparent the lies are.
UPDATE: Jack Cafferty of CNN rips Obama on transparency and hopes voters remember this in the midterm elections.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: cbs, Democrats, health care, Obama, sestak, specter, transparency. lies
The True Fake Michelle Obama Story
Oct 16, 2008 Political
Yesterday I wrote a post indicating that African Press International had reported that Michelle Obama had called them and ranted about the way her husband was treated and she threw a lot of racist rants in to boot. Though I was a bit (but not completely) skeptical I waited, like many others, for the reported audio to be released. The audio was promised for today and has not been released. Therefore, this story cannot be verified. The Obama camp says it never happened and the API says it did. That is not good enough especially when it is unlikely Michelle Obama would be given enough of a leash to make that kind of call. She has been under wraps since she told us how she was not proud of her country, the one that gave her a great education and made her wealthy.
It does not matter that the story is fake because the story is true. How is that, you ask? Well, back when Dan Rather and CBS used phony documents to spread nasty lies about George Bush in a blatant attempt to influence the election, we were given the rules to follow. After Rather and CBS finally capitulated and said they could not verify that the documents were authentic (because they were phony, duh) we were told that it did not matter if the documents were phony because the story was true. The left wing website, Media Matters, claimed that Rather was correct when he said that no one ever proved the documents were fake and that the basic facts in the story were true.
I prefer to use that line of reasoning with regard to API. Though no one has proven that the API story is fake (nor has it been proven true) the basic facts remain true. Michelle Obama is a radical black woman who has disdain for whites and believes that blacks should unquestioningly support her husband because he is black.
So, while I did report that the story was out there, I did not fall for it hook, line, and sinker (as some morons might assert). I wrote a disclaimer in the original that it could be a hoax or someone who said she was Ms. Obama made the call.
But I will take the Dan Rather, Daily Kos, Media Matters, CBS, liberal approach on this one and say that no one has proven the story is fake and the basic facts are true. Maybe if the Obama’s had a better history it would not be an issue but given her college papers, her remarks about pride and the quote from his book about that’s just how white folks will do ya…
Conclusion: Michelle Obama is a radical and hates white people. That is why she and her hubby stayed at Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
CBS Vindicates Palin On Bush Doctrine
Sep 15, 2008 Political
The people on the left who have been running scared by the nomination of Sarah Palin could not wait until Charles Gibson of ABC interviewed her so they could see her exposed. The left went nuts and people like Alan Colmes said that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. People said she looked like a deer in the headlights and that she had little knowledge of a doctrine that everybody in the world should know. Turns out there is no official Bush Doctrine but that at least four things have been given that label. CBS, in a hit piece on Palin and how she will fade, unwittingly exonerated her.
The premise is that Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine is and that this shows she is unqualified to be VP. Yes, Gibson had to tell her what it was because she must have been too busy putting on lipstick to pay attention. But, Gibson told her one version of the doctrine and it was from 2002. Gibson said:
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? [emphasis mine]
So that settles it. The Bush Doctrine is what Gibson laid out and any rube who does not know that should not be out in public alone. Everyone knows the doctrine except Palin, or do they? In the hit piece at CBS News, they said this:
Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate. [emphasis mine]
Now, if CBS is saying that this is the Bush Doctrine we have a problem because it differs from what Gibson said and this means that not everyone is in agreement as to what the term means. The one Gibson relied on is from 2002 and the one CBS wrote about is the most current version. So, when Gibson asked Palin what she interpreted it to be and she answered “His world view”, she was pretty much in line with CBS and the current line of thinking on the topic.
One would think that CBS would have looked at the transcript (they couldn’t have if this is what they think Gibson “put to her”) so that their version would match Gibson’s. Since they decided to write “what everyone knows” they have unwittingly vindicated Palin. She demonstrated there is more than one version when she asked “in what respect?” and she demonstrated that she is current by saying “his world view.”
I think that it is funny that while CBS was trying to reassure liberals (and keep them from jumping off bridges) with a hit piece designed to diminish Palin by promising that she will fade, they actually helped her out by showing that she is not stupid, had the correct answer and that Gibson was wrong. His credibility (and theirs) took a hit.
One other thing. The CBS piece, when discussing the fact that Palin will fade, presented this gem:
This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. (Look out, Michael Phelps. Your time is coming, too.)
Notice that one name is missing from the list of stars raised to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions; Barack Obama.
Obama is a media creation and CBS is right, his star is fading. It is being dwarfed by the Palin star. All we can hope is that this won’t change by election day.
If she gets one third the time he had, she will still be shining in November.