Social Security #'s and other info on officials

[Freedom of Information]

Govenor of Florida - Jeb Bush: 451-88-4919-His wife: 562-82-0694

Porter Goss: 492-44-9771

Senator from Texas - Tom Delay: 449-78-1174

Colin Powell: 113-28-4024

His wife: 417-54-4913

Bill Gates: 539-60-5125

NAME:
DOB: 06-09-72
RANK:Officer
HOME ADDRESS:
TEL: (801) 446-****
SSN: 286-**-****
DESC:Race:w |Sex:f |Height: 5'10" |Weight: 148 |Eyes: grn |Hair: brn


>>> Please don't post names and addresses of police officers. If a police officer is arrested or charged with ANY crime, then yes I will allow you to post his name, adress, S/S #, tele. #, shoe size, 3rd cousin's name, or whatever.

Admin.

[WaTcHeR]

Oh gee's you're back again posting. So I guess I can expect a bunch of whiney baby cops to start up that posting "public information" is wrong when it belong's to a cop, but it's ok that the rest of the U.S. population's information is posted.

Give me a break! A "secret police" within our own country? I say fuck that! If you want a secret police, move to another country and replace your blue uniforms with a brown shirt and boots.

[WaTcHeR]

November 8, 2005

Web Site Legally Posting Police Officers' Home Addresses Raises Safety Concerns

With at least one Web site legally posting the home addresses of 79 New York Police Department officers, concerns are mounting that such information could find its way into the wrong hands.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, a former Democratic mayoral candidate whose district straddles Brooklyn and Queens, said the Internet should be used for purposes such as research, not as a bulletin board for posting personal information that could subject police officers to harm.

"It is one thing for a public official, a congressman, for example, to have his contact information be made public," Mr. Weiner said at a press briefing yesterday. "That's one of the costs of being a public official." But posting personal details about a police officer online, he said, "is there for one reason, to intimidate and in some cases to harm those officers."

The congressman pressed for the passage of the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act, which includes a provision he co-authored with Rep. Louis Gohmert, a Republican of Texas, designed to ban personal data about police officers, court officers, and judges from the Internet.

The bill would make posting personal data of officers and judges as a federal crime, but only in cases where a motive of malice could be established.

The bill also calls for a $20 million grant program for court security improvements and a $20 million program for witness protection. The House is expected to vote on the bill this week, Mr. Weiner said. A companion piece of legislation has already passed in the Senate.

The Court Protection Act was born in the aftermath of the murder of the family of a federal judge from Chicago, Joan Humphrey. Mr. Weiner linked the deaths to the fact that the judge's home address and family photographs had appeared in chat rooms on the Web.

The president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, said he supported the legislation because it would provide a mechanism to protect officers and their families. The personal postings put "our family members in jeopardy," Mr. Lynch said.

When the communications director of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Robert Mladinich, found out that his name was posted on a Web site, he said he was "disheartened."

[WaTcHeR]

watcher said:

Rep. Anthony Weiner, a former Democratic mayoral candidate whose district straddles Brooklyn and Queens, said the Internet should be used for purposes such as research, not as a bulletin board for posting personal information that could subject police officers to harm.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, who the fuck are you to decide what the Internet should be used for?

watcher said:

It is one thing for a public official, a congressman, for example, to have his contact information be made public," Mr. Weiner said at a press briefing yesterday. That's one of the costs of being a public official." But posting personal details about a police officer online, he said, is there for one reason, to intimidate and in some cases to harm those officers.

Excuse me Anthony Weiner, but cops are "public servants," they aren't a secret police in our society. Are they?

Ok Mr. Anthony Weiner tell me this, why no law to protect the citizens that voted you into office? What about their "personal information?" Did you not get elected into office to represent all the people? Maybe you think it's best to only give certain protection to certain selected groups?

watcher said:

The congressman pressed for the passage of the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act, which includes a provision he co-authored with Rep. Louis Gohmert, a Republican of Texas, designed to ban personal data about police officers, court officers, and judges from the Internet.

Seems that Rep. Louis Gohmert has his tongue pretty far up the ass of the cops as well it seems. Rep. Louis Gohmert doesn't seem to believe either that his citizen's whom he represents should have any protection from identity theft. It would seem that Rep. Louis Gohmert is like Rep. Anthony Weiner, neither care for their voters. Both are probably getting paid big money from the police unions to pass this law.

watcher said:

The bill would make posting personal data of officers and judges as a federal crime, but only in cases where a motive of malice could be established.

A Federal crime? What's wrong, the government doesn't think the states are up to passing and enforcing their own laws?

Again I ask why don't these bozo's in Washington think that citizen's should have the same right as a police officer and keep there information off the Internet?

watcher said:

The president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, said he supported the legislation because it would provide a mechanism to protect officers and their families. The personal postings put our family members in jeopardy, Mr. Lynch said.

To Patrick Lynch, boo fucking hoo! To protect police families, hell you know as well as I do that police officers have no legal constitutional right to protect or save a person. You really ought to try blowing that "mechanism" crap out your nose and see how that flys. While your at it why not tell all the cops out there not to not have their names and numbers in telephone books. Also a police officer should never use a court house for any type of business. Keeping names and addresses of police officers off the Internet, will NOT make them safe. If someone want's them bad enough, it's too damn easy to find the information in this day and age.

The following are public officials that have no business being your representative in Washington.

The following list of persons that you voted to represent you, are NOT doing their job! Call them today and demand that they protect you rights and personal information. If they can do it for special groups (cops), then why shouldn't your representative should be able to protect you?

The following are person's that believe that police officers have more rights than a normal citizen:

Rep Louie Gohmert [TX]

Rep Rodney Alexander [LA]

Rep Charles W. Boustany Jr. [LA]

Rep Steve Chabot [OH]

Rep Michael Conaway [TX]

Rep Elton Gallegly [CA]

Rep John R. "Randy" Kuhl Jr. [NY]

Rep Daniel E. Lungren [CA]

Rep Anthony D. Weiner [NY]

Rep. Joe Wilson [SC]

Rep. Anthony Weiner [NY]

[KC]

Here's the bill that is about to give police officers more security than the public.

I have to agree that this will make them "secret police."


H.R.1751

Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] (introduced 4/21/2005) Cosponsors (9)

Related Bills: H.RES.540, H.R.1710, S.1968

Latest Major Action: 11/10/2005 Referred to Senate committee.

Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

House Reports: 109-271
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:

4/21/2005--Introduced.

Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005 - Amends the federal criminal code to increase penalties for assaulting, kidnapping, murdering, attempting or conspiring to kidnap or murder, or threatening to assault, kidnap, or murder a U.S. official or employee, a federal judge or law enforcement officer, or an immediate family member of such an individual.

Subjects anyone who kills a current or former federally funded public safety officer performing official duties to the penalties applicable to killing a U.S. officer or employee performing official duties. Increases minimum terms of imprisonment for second degree murder and manslaughter.

Increases penalties for: (1) influencing or injuring an officer or juror; and (2) tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant. Includes intimidation of or retaliation against a witness, victim, juror, or informant within the definition of "unlawful activity" for purposes of the prohibition against interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises.

Amends: (1) the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes to create and expand witness protection programs; and (2) the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to authorize grants to states to create and expand witness and victim protection programs.

Prohibits: (1) filing in a publicly available record any false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property of a federal judge, federal attorney, or public safety officer; or (2) making restricted personal information about specified covered officials publicly available through the Internet.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS:

4/21/2005 Introduced/originated in House

11/7/2005 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-271.

11/9/2005 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 375 - 45 (Roll no. 585).

11/10/2005 Referred to Senate committee: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[FO]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech,

or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

----------------

I think it's written that's it's easy to understand. For example; "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

Definitions of abridge: verb: reduce in scope while retaining essential elements.

[CC]

TAKING TECH SECURITY SERIOUSLY....The bad news is 2005 was an awful year for tech security. The worse news is the federal government could invest more in cybersecurity, but doesn't appear interested.

2005 saw the most computer security breaches ever, subjecting millions of Americans to potential identity fraud, according to a report published Thursday.

Over 130 major intrusions exposed more than 55 million Americans to the growing variety of fraud as personal data like Social Security and credit card numbers were left unprotected, according to USA Today.

The Treasury Department says that cyber crime has now outgrown illegal drug sales in annual proceeds, netting an estimated $105 billion in 2004, the report said.

At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security's 2005 research budget for cybersecurity programs was cut 7% to $16 million.



After the ChoicePoint debacle, the recent breakdown in tech security at Ford, and the fact that terrorists are coordinating operations online, you'd think cybersecurity research would get a little more than $16 million -- and wouldn't face budget cuts right now.

That, coupled by the fact that the Bush administration has gone through four cybersecurity chiefs in three years, hardly inspires confidence in the system.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Our government doesn't care for the people!

[midihell]

only thing i would like to know is why in the world is everyone protectingg the corruption of police orunld hte united states

[Shuftin]

midihell said:

only thing i would like to know is why in the world is everyone protectingg the corruption of police orunld hte united states

You seem to suffer from thick finger syndrome. There is a spell check at the bottom of your posts.