General Discussion

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)

2. YUP ... the bank teller is only supposed to look at your balance

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:01 PM

Jun 2013

when they are actually helping you.

Doesn't mean they CAN'T look at the finances of their neighbors. They are not supposed to, and can get fired for doing so.

And in all of these cases, technology mechanisms are always being added, so that audits of access can be conducted and those who abuse their access authority can be identified and stopped, and if appropriate, prosecuted.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Snowden Admits There Are Restrictions. Offers No Proof Of Abuse. He Is An Idiot. [View all] KittyWampus Jun 2013 OP

So you're still waiting for all the facts to come in before coming to a conclusion. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #1

YUP ... the bank teller is only supposed to look at your balance JoePhilly Jun 2013 #2

As long as governments, companies, and individuals use computer systems pnwmom Jun 2013 #41

Yes ... and the auditing technology is there ... but its usually JoePhilly Jun 2013 #56

Then repeat. pnwmom Jun 2013 #62

A man with such a low sense of self-worth, he came to believe he knows better than everyone else. randome Jun 2013 #3

Fuded no doubt Cheap_Trick Jun 2013 #23

The potential for abuse is inherent in what he said magellan Jun 2013 #4

As long as there are computer systems there is a potential for abuse. pnwmom Jun 2013 #43

So don't bother protecting the data? magellan Jun 2013 #60

Of course you should. pnwmom Jun 2013 #61

That's exactly why they shouldn't be relying on POLICY restrictions magellan Jun 2013 #64

Technical security isn't difficult to "subvert" when those in charge pnwmom Jun 2013 #65

It's better than wide open 24/7 no matter who's in charge. n/t magellan Jun 2013 #66

I agree. avaistheone1 Jun 2013 #54

And btw, he himself is the proof that abuse can happen. n/t magellan Jun 2013 #5

Seriously how do people not see what is staring them in the eye? dkf Jun 2013 #7

short answer: THEY ARE STUPID Skittles Jun 2013 #52

What 'proof'? All he had access to were internal NSA documents. randome Jun 2013 #19

Including a top secret FISA court order magellan Jun 2013 #29

That's the point. There are only suggestions, no evidence of his outrageous claims. randome Jun 2013 #33

Can you please describe what the president's email magellan Jun 2013 #34

Even something heavily redacted would have been more believable than a goddamned PowerPoint slide! randome Jun 2013 #37

Sure it would magellan Jun 2013 #39

And I truly do not understand why believing someone without evidence is so easy for some. randome Jun 2013 #45

So is he "without evidence" magellan Jun 2013 #49

This message was self-deleted by its author magellan Jun 2013 #49

He has adult onset epilepsy. It can change mood, personality, even MADem Jun 2013 #67

This message was self-deleted by its author magellan Jun 2013 #34

He has a list of targets someone was reviewing. dkf Jun 2013 #53

Absolutely! Where is the proof! Whisp Jun 2013 #38

Ah so you think he was entitled to see everything he is leaking then? dkf Jun 2013 #6

I just read your identical post in another thread... Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #8

In marketing and in propaganda repetition IS magical Dragonfli Jun 2013 #44

I appreciate that someone on DU is waiting for the facts and keeping an open mind on this issue Fumesucker Jun 2013 #9

you forgot warrprayer Jun 2013 #18

lol - he published the scum sucking losers own TOP SECRET documents on TOTAL SURVEILLANCE usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #10

Whadda Load! Vanje Jun 2013 #11

Wow, just drop the pretense, there isn't much left Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #12

Thats not in the talking points.... Vanje Jun 2013 #17

So true! reformist2 Jun 2013 #21

I imagine the critics could then offer their own proclamations of love LanternWaste Jun 2013 #26

Excellent point Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #28

Go back in the archives and check the primaries sometime, some of that was even worse. Dragonfli Jun 2013 #47

Dean/Clark. Clinton/Obama dkf Jun 2013 #55

And the people who... 99Forever Jun 2013 #13

That is a very good question. randome Jun 2013 #22

Why not? Daniel537 Jun 2013 #31

He said "I'm not trying to hide from justice here." randome Jun 2013 #32

he did it the Rosa Parks way, ya know. Whisp Jun 2013 #42

That's a story in itself 99Forever Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #24

No, they're the lowest bidder. baldguy Jun 2013 #57

A thread from the 2nd most informed person on DU; all others are tied for first. byeya Jun 2013 #14

what an enormous load of Bull Crap! MNBrewer Jun 2013 #15

True, but they have spreaders far superior to the OP Dragonfli Jun 2013 #48

An idiot warrprayer Jun 2013 #16

Well that stirred up some dust didn't it. ucrdem Jun 2013 #20

DU rec...nt SidDithers Jun 2013 #25

I'm curious. Why are you so determined to run down Snowden? scarletwoman Jun 2013 #27

Wow, you've convinced me. Daniel537 Jun 2013 #30

Kick Scurrilous Jun 2013 #36

God, you're really down to "he's an idiot!" in thread titles? Marr Jun 2013 #40

k&r Whisp Jun 2013 #46

Those government nukes lack technical limitations as well BeyondGeography Jun 2013 #51

Spying on civilians is "Policy based". Oh joy. Vanje Jun 2013 #58

Secret laws and secret "courts" are NOT "policy protections". Vanje Jun 2013 #59

Question, What do you think about the ACLU's current lawsuit on the matter... allin99 Jun 2013 #63