JetBLEW it

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone please explain WHY there are THREE threads on this issue? For all press this is getting you would have though we commiting some terrible offense. Go find somebody else to pick on OK!

[/ QUOTE ]

Primarily because it's the first time I caught wind of it.
smile.gif


Now if they had blown a tire and it generated three threads, yup, that would be considered getting picked on. But releasing people's private information to a third party, getting straight out busted and then backpedaling and trying to justify breaching confidence -- and thus generating three different threads -- is more on the level of 'outrage'.

I think we all know that if American, Delta or United had done this, you'd probably see far more threads.
 
Ok, this is KIND of unrelated, but the same, if that makes sense. Someone help me understand a little better....

I was under the impression that the gov't instigated the privacy policy and are the ones enforcing it. (Am I wrong on this??) SO, I went and signed up for a business license. I was able to fill out my P.O. Box on most of the required documents (DBA, Inspection, etc.) but I had to use a physical address on the home occupation permit and license. Within a month I started receiving credit card apps, life ins offers, etc in the name of my biz at my physical address. So the only place that would have come from is the gov't papers. So the gov't is selling my info to solicitors??

Ok, now this is kind of related because isn't the TSA also instigated by the gov't? (Am I wrong??) If so, then how is it that the gov't who set up and runs the privacy policy is, itself immune from it and profiting off of the info it sells, AND purchasing the info for anti terroists use?? Or maybe I am missing something??
 
Wife, it could be considered public information. I know that if we register our DD214's with the clerk of courts it becomes public record.
 
What is the point of it being public? By public info what would that mean? Is there a list sitting around that solicitors can come down and copy? OR is there a list sitting around that the gov't will gladly copy for you and sell for a small fee. I am just wondering if they are profitting or not from having this information. And also, if we were able to sign up for the do not call list, why can't we also sign up for the do not mail me crap list? Isn't any one concerned about the wasted paper? Ok, well that's getting off subject.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So the gov't is selling my info to solicitors??


[/ QUOTE ]

Any information you divulge to the government, apart from tax returns, is public information. All you need is a request form and a large plethora of information is available.

That's primarily the problem with the government collecting and datamining information on private individuals that aren't under investigation. We'll use the 'Keepin' America Safe From Terrorism' excuse, but the second that your "private" information goes to a third party, it's no longer bound by privacy and 'opt out' rules.

Like the information that the credit card solicitors gleaned from you forming your business can be used to check your credit information, and then that data can (and is) sold to third parties, and so on.

Despite the website, I'm actually a very private person. When my telephone rings, I want it to be someone I know, when I get mail, it should either be a bill, a postcard or something else I was expecting to receive.

I never give my telephone number out, don't give use my mother's maiden name for 'security purposes', rarely give a company my true physical address and under no circumstances, give out my social security number. But if I purchase an airline ticket, a third party beyond the airline may (and will) have access to that and it will be resold indefinitely.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because this is America, and you have the right to some privacy!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time I looked at the Constitution there wasn't anything about a "right" to privacy. Correct me if I am wrong.

Also, it isn't like JBLU was collecting passenger info to launch a new marketing campaign, they handed it over to the federal gov. for the implementation of a new color coding system for passenger security. Which I might add only utilizes info that is PUBLIC RECORD anyway. US airlines are not Swiss Banks. JBLU has done nothing illegal.

Just because there's a lawsuit doesn't mean it has any grounds. This reminds me of the suit against fast food last year. Funny they picked one of the profitable airlines to sue. Misinformed, greedy and litigious.


That said, in a perfect world I'd like to be able to travel in anonymity.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Last time I looked at the Constitution there wasn't anything about a "right" to privacy. Correct me if I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't. Which is what makes the issue touchy. There is no expressly guaranteed right to privacy outlined in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or any of the following Ammendments.

However, add up enough court rulings and a "defacto" right to "some" privacy has established. I.E. Adults in their own home, public land vs. private land (in terms of photographs, etc.) the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule, etc.

There is a public record. It needs to remain public (there are good reasons for public information) but itmes like credit card records, what books you bought, your medical records, etc. are NOT public record and should be held in more confidence than they are.

However, what JeBlue did was to violate their own publicly posted "privacy policy" and they should be held accountable. Is what they did illegal? Doubtful. Is it bad business? Yup.
 
Bad for JetBlue's business yes. They should have just asked for consent and many of the passengers would have voluntarily given the information.

Personally, I have nothing to hide for security reasons. If they sold the records for marketing purposes, that would tick me off.

What really ticks me off is the fact that there are millions of Americans out there that sit around and look for a reason to sue somebody. This is sickening. If a person gets their "deserved" million dollars out of the lawsuit does this really settle anything or help anything. No. It just puts JetBlue in a bind and possibly hurts fellow pilots that worked hard to get to where they are today. JetBlue messed up, but they weren't necessarily profiting from any of it. I could be wrong about this.

Just my opinion.
smirk.gif
 
Not to turn this into a political discussion but we do have the right to privacy. the constitution wasn't meant to list what rights we had. It was meant to list what things the government could do. The government doesn't give us our rights. They come by virtue of the fact that we are human beings. We allow the government certain powers to help maintain an orderly society but government has no divine right to tell us what our rights are.
 
Heh ... I won't go beyond the following.

Actually, government does define our rights. Without limitations or definitions outlined by our government people could/would go around killing one another because it's their right.

I see where you're coming from but in the practical world government does define what we can and can't do and we tolerate it because without those limits we'd all be holed up in caves with knives, sticks, AK-47s and bombs. In otherwords we'd be Afghanistan.
grin.gif
 
I think that when someone wins a lawsuit the punishment to the offender should go to something worthy, instead of just people's pockets. ie:if they win against JetBlue, then maybe the money should towards programs or whatever is needed to help get rid of this marketing, soliciting, selling of information, instead of just making people rich. If a lawsuit was won against Boeing re 9/11 then the money should be spent on better security and rebuilding the areas that were damaged. etc. Is that a bad idea or does it makes sense? I just think it should go to help rectify the problem that it caused.
 
Well I am a damn yankee afterall!
smile.gif


Philosophically I agree with you. We all have certain rights yadda yadda yadda.

But in practicality we, as a society, allow ourselves and some of our "rights" to be governed/limited in a tradeoff for a relatviely secure, stable, predictable world in which to live.
 
No, it's not in the Constitution, but the courts have held that people do have a right to privacy. There are many cases that established that right.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, it's not in the Constitution, but the courts have held that people do have a right to privacy. There are many cases that established that right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one court case that says it's illegal for a business to access PUBLIC RECORDS of its patrons and to cooperate with a FEDERAL AGENCY in develping a program to strengthen NATIONAL SECURITY.

You can't because there isn't one. They aren't spying on anyone, there is no clandestine monitoring. I don't get why so many of you aspring pilots are so against legal and reasonable measures to increase safety. It's a strange dichotomy. "I want to be an airline pilot, but I'm against almost anything that would make the industy more secure."

Before one of the know-nothing pi$$ wit socialists in here starts waxing poetic about the not wanting to trade their civil rights for safer skies, let me ask you this; What rights are being violated? What conceible harm could befall you if this system is actually implemented? Truth be told there is no compromising of your civil liberties or personal freedoms. NONE.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Name one court case that says it's illegal for a business to access PUBLIC RECORDS of its patrons and to cooperate with a FEDERAL AGENCY in develping a program to strengthen NATIONAL SECURITY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jollyrodger are you aware they released this information to the public? and on the internet none the less?? I dont think you would like Jetblue releasing you customer information (name, address, date of birth, social security number, etc) on the internet anymore then the people who are sueing jetblue for doing so. If you make a purchase on the internet that information does not automatically become public information just because it was now handed over to a a public company, and while it is legal for companies to access their own records it is NOT legal for them to publish this information on the internet.

As a nation we must take extraordinary actions against the evils which face us, but eroding our freedom is not one of them. Hundreds of thousands of men have died to protect these freedoms which so many are now so willing to sacrifice. Im a lawful citizen....I never break the law, but I still dont want the FBI or any other government agency snooping around in my personal business without just cause. There are other ways to fight terrorism besides destroying the framework...the binding fabric......of this great country.

Sure give up a little freedom in the name of catching terrorist, then we give up a little more and a little more.. and soon theres no more to give up..

The only one who wins this is the terroist. They instill fear in the american public and in our rush to save the world we give up the one thing we have fought so hard to preserve. I'm not paranoid or worried the government is out to get me, personally I could care less, but that isnt the point!. However I dont believe we should allow the government to step all over us for whatever cause they are seeking to save. Thats why we have Laws.. Next your going to say we should throw out the right to the 4th amendment and allow police to not need a search warrent to enter someones house or place of business and go through your personal stuff after all only guilty people have something to hide. Our laws were designed to protect the innocent as well as the accused from government abuse. Its these laws like the MIRANDA rights that protect us, and I by no means am willing to throw the rule book out the window.

I believe that part of being in a free country is being free from the government intruding into our lives. It is only a small step from here to the "Papers, please." That so many governments have fallen into. Its not like our govt or law enforcement has never abused there power or miss used data that was aquired.

The right to privacy is a freedom when their is a expectation by a reasonably prudent person to that privacy. The right to privacy in our own homes is also a freedom. Thats why we require a search warrant to invade someones privacy, because there is a reasonable expectation to privacy in ones home. That's also why a third party "The Judge" is their to interpet the law and facts so he/she can decide if the police, FBI or whoever has enough probably cause to effect that search warrant and thats a crash course in criminal law for you.

Some of you don't seem to get the idea that if we lose personal freedoms and due process....we have torn and tattered our constitution. Due process is a basic tenet of American freedoms. If we allow Ashcroft and Bush to destroy these in the name of "hunting terrorists" You don't really believe we will get them back? In the US the government, FBI etc is not allowed to behave like thh Taliban or the Gestapo. If we don't make certain they remember this ...you won't have to move..you'll wake up one morning under the control of that kind of government. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Anybody who believes that if you are law abiding you have nothing to fear is nieve.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

And where do you draw the line Jollyrodger??

Have any of you heard of Mccarthyism. To me the whole deal with the TSA could lead to the same kind of witch hunts. If an individual is willing to give up any of there rights in this country then they better be willing to give up all of them. Our govt. has been successfully taking away our rights for years. Ever hear the words Innocent until proven guilty?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the government to make arrests; search people and their property; and seize objects documents and contraband. These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law.Search and seizure law is constantly in flux and so complex that entire books are devoted to it.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It is the freedom to decide which details of your life will be revealed to the public and which will be revealed only to those you care to share them with. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

Ryan
 
[/ QUOTE ]
Have any of you heard of Mccarthyism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have. In 1993 they declassified messages that were wired between the former USSR and the US. Guess what? McCarthy was right. Hiss, Rosenbergs et al were all GUILTY OF ESPIONAGE!. They gave away our most sensitve military and nuclear secrets. They were active communists seeking out positions in our gov and mil to undermine our democracy. Thanks for the example.

You bought the propaganda -hook line and sinker. I'm glad I made the pre-rebutal to this kind of inevitable response. I'm glad you metioned judicial oversight, because the Patriot Act requires judicial approval to instigate servailence. But to hell with it, we're not getting anywhere.

But hey man, I want to tell you it's not personal. Perhaps we (myself included) should all lighten up a few notches.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you metioned judicial oversight, because the Patriot Act requires judicial approval to instigate servailence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judical approval?? I think you bought the whole patriot act hook-line and sinker will save the world.. Lets get some facts straight..

The PATRIOT Act and other measures went too far, too fast. Some of those measures, including: section 213, which permits the use of “sneak and peek” delayed notification search warrants does not require the government to seek approval before obtaining a search warrant.. in fact it allows them to break into your home and look around first and then if they find something incriminating they can then obtain a search warrant so it would be admissable in court.

Section 215, which gives law enforcement access to a wide array of personal records, including library, medical and educational records, without a warrant and without probable cause which are considered confidental records and again would fall under the 4th admendment which I already went into.

Section 415, which allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens certified by the Attorney General as terrorists, and bypasses judicial review which is just plain illegal, as courts have held that ALL people arrested are entitled to a attorney, and a fair and speedy trail. You can not detain someone indinitately without due process.

If you believe peoples rights are not being stepped on your just nieve.

Thanks for the response's though.. I always did enjoy the criminal law classes I took in college
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I don't apply for contests, select "OPT OUT" on credit card applications, or volunteer for surveys.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many of you use the discount cards that grocery stores give out? If you do, you need to know that they track what you buy.

Basically, unless you pay cash for everything, never use a credit card, never use a computer, never give out your SSN, etc, you actually have very little privacy.

If JetBlue violated their own policy, then they should be liable for lying to their customers. I'm not convinced that they broke any laws or even that the database program was a bad thing.
 
I don;t see how jetBlue could release a SSN. Who gives out their SSN for a PLANE TICKET???

If you do that you deserve to have your information on the internet!

I want to see some proof that Social Security #'s were given out.
 
Back
Top