Ripped from today's NYT headlines:
Clinton Says She Misspoke About Dodging Sniper Fire
Hmm. Misspoke. OK. I looked that word up, just in case it had changed meaning since I last checked into it. Here's what it said:
mis·speak
1. to speak, utter, or pronounce incorrectly.
2. to speak inaccurately, inappropriately, or too hastily.
Here's another word I looked up. Note the similarity:
lie
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying.
A lawyer would distinguish between these two terms by beating to death the idea of intent behind what Mrs. Clinton said, because the first definition doesn't mention intent while the second one does. Normal people wouldn't, but let's go with the lawyer mode for a moment.
If the intent was in fact to deceive, which it was, why are we calling this misspeaking instead of outright lying in the first place?
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misspoke
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Big friggin' deal
First, the story: http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1869673.php? OK? Everyone got that? The State Department got into the passport files of one Mrs. Clinton, one Mr. Obama, and one Mr. McCain. And the ACLU is going ballistic around the idea that the State Department breach of passport information could affect any of us, not just presidential candidates.
Normally I’m very down with the ACLU, litigating difficult issues as they do to make clearer the very fuzzy lines of our laws and the Constitution. The mission of the ACLU, ripped straight from their website, is to protect your:
• First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
These are all good things, and I believe in that mission. But this brings up an idea I find completely ridiculous. Why does it matter who the data thief, or in this case, privacy thief is, in order for there to be any action taken?
For the purposes of the ACLU, it matters. They don't address the nongovernmental. Fine. But for the consumer actually being harmed, it doesn’t matter. You’re hosed no matter who breached. What’s in a passport file? Your birthday, address, next-of-kin info and your Social Security number. You know, pretty much the same info that any cretin could look up about you on the Internet, and that national identifier that every vendor with whom you do business has. Those companies have been routinely blowing it with regard to holding your national identifier private for years, and what have we done about it? Jack. Friggin. Squat.
When data thieves breached the systems of credit-card processor CardSystems Solutions and made off with data on as many as 40 million accounts affecting various credit-card brands, in June of 2005, who looked out for your interests? Or when personal information on about 650,000 customers of J.C. Penney and up to 100 other retailers was potentially compromised after a computer tape went missing this past January? Or when, in Spring of 2005, CitiFinancial said tapes containing unencrypted information on 3.9 million customers were lost by the United Parcel Service while in transit to a credit bureau? Who looked out for Joe Sixpack’s interests when data leaks were reported by Bank of America and Wachovia, data brokers ChoicePoint and LexisNexis, Cal Berkeley and Stanford?
This government breach affected three people. Three really well-known people, most of whose private information, as government employees, isn’t so private. The other breaches I’ve cited involved millions of people who trusted non-governmental entities to get it right. To me, this is the far more serious and scary issue. My guess is that it would be a hell of a lot easier for Mrs. Clinton to get her identity reestablished than any Trogvision reader out there (both of you). So where is any pro-consumer advocate? (Insert crickets and tumbleweeds here.)
‘Cause it’s all too clear we’re on our own…
Normally I’m very down with the ACLU, litigating difficult issues as they do to make clearer the very fuzzy lines of our laws and the Constitution. The mission of the ACLU, ripped straight from their website, is to protect your:
• First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
These are all good things, and I believe in that mission. But this brings up an idea I find completely ridiculous. Why does it matter who the data thief, or in this case, privacy thief is, in order for there to be any action taken?
For the purposes of the ACLU, it matters. They don't address the nongovernmental. Fine. But for the consumer actually being harmed, it doesn’t matter. You’re hosed no matter who breached. What’s in a passport file? Your birthday, address, next-of-kin info and your Social Security number. You know, pretty much the same info that any cretin could look up about you on the Internet, and that national identifier that every vendor with whom you do business has. Those companies have been routinely blowing it with regard to holding your national identifier private for years, and what have we done about it? Jack. Friggin. Squat.
When data thieves breached the systems of credit-card processor CardSystems Solutions and made off with data on as many as 40 million accounts affecting various credit-card brands, in June of 2005, who looked out for your interests? Or when personal information on about 650,000 customers of J.C. Penney and up to 100 other retailers was potentially compromised after a computer tape went missing this past January? Or when, in Spring of 2005, CitiFinancial said tapes containing unencrypted information on 3.9 million customers were lost by the United Parcel Service while in transit to a credit bureau? Who looked out for Joe Sixpack’s interests when data leaks were reported by Bank of America and Wachovia, data brokers ChoicePoint and LexisNexis, Cal Berkeley and Stanford?
This government breach affected three people. Three really well-known people, most of whose private information, as government employees, isn’t so private. The other breaches I’ve cited involved millions of people who trusted non-governmental entities to get it right. To me, this is the far more serious and scary issue. My guess is that it would be a hell of a lot easier for Mrs. Clinton to get her identity reestablished than any Trogvision reader out there (both of you). So where is any pro-consumer advocate? (Insert crickets and tumbleweeds here.)
‘Cause it’s all too clear we’re on our own…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)