Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 10th, 2009 @ 3:05am

   
   

   So there I was in this hallway. right?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   That is a worry...

   

   Rose M. Welch, Mar 10th, 2009 @ 3:09am

   
   

   I manage a fine jewelry store and we're signed up to receive fraud alert e-mails from our local police department. Several times a week, we receive e-mails with details of potential fraud, such as someone losing a wallet, bad checks coming up, or reports of fake cash running around. It's pretty useful.
   
   However, once the report came attached with copies of a girl's old expired ID card with her SS as the number and her current driver's license. She was up for writing checks on a closed account so it gave her bank info as well. I guess it wouldn't have done much good to steal her identity but we were really shocked at the amount of personal info we had there.
   
   We signed up for those e-mails online. It's a list intended for local business, but no one every verified that we were a real business. Anyone could have signed up for them. Pretty crazy stuff, this intranets.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Private companies are the problem

   

   hegemon13, Mar 10th, 2009 @ 6:04am

   
   

   I am all for better communication between police departments, especially involving crimes or criminals that cross jurisdictional boundaries. However, it is a major problem when private companies have access to that information. I would think that would be illegal. A private company has to have permission to do a background check on me, so how is it legal for them to have unregulated access to crime history data?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 10th, 2009 @ 6:39am

   
   

   Law enforcement agencies should have unregulated communications between each other. The criminals don't have to abide by any "regulations" and have always had a leg up because of that. May as well level the playing field. Private companies should absolutely NOT have access to it.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Private companies are the problem

   

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 10th, 2009 @ 6:44am

   
   

   Yea, public security and public policing should not be done by PRIVATE companies (that are almost always for-profit). But then, I think contractors are a risky thing for much government work (mostly because of loose regs).

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re:

   

   Kamu, Mar 10th, 2009 @ 6:47am

   
   

   "Law enforcement agencies should have unregulated communications between each other. The criminals don't have to abide by any "regulations" and have always had a leg up because of that. May as well level the playing field. Private companies should absolutely NOT have access to it."
   
   Just don't be the poor bastard who ends up on the wrong side of someone with access to these social networks. It could make life *very* difficult.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Overcast, Mar 10th, 2009 @ 7:23am

   
   

   Just yet another good reason to avoid the social networks - hell, I got enough people bothering me all the time - the last thing I need is more people wanting more of my time online.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   No expectation of privacy here

   

   Julie, Mar 15th, 2009 @ 7:43am

   
   

   The simple fact....you have no expectation of privacy when you post on the WORLD WIDE WEB...Duh. All information here is public. I enjoy reading and seeing what criminals are doing (as a cop), so I can keep them from victimizing others. So, keep posting your crimes on the web for all to see, no warrant required, thank goodness, strike one up for the good guys.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment