Sounds similar to the old ‘wake on RS232’ signal that would restart a powered down machine.
Pulling out the mains plug is the easiest solution.
So can the government call tell what I’m watching even when my TV is off?
Yes, this is very broad and troubling language. I don’t like it a bit. But when it goes on to talk about monitoring files and such it uses the term “system” which appears to be talking about the CARS system. If the real intent is to poke around on the dealers computer it is completely outrageous, but I expect that is not the case.
In the end I think we will find that the language about the computer being considered Govt Property has to do with the right to monitor the traffic between the two computers. If the Govt “owns” both sides then there is no issue. Again, horrible wording on the part of the Govt.
Of course, it blatantly says that isn’t the case:
what system are you staring at when you’re reading that? It isn’t your system, your federal computer system, any federal computer system, it’s the CARS system.
I think maybe he’s talking about this part (in bold).
Which I addressed. Using the word “this” has a meaning, it’s not just thrown in there for shits and giggles.
It isn’t clear to me that the “system” being talked about does NOT include the dealer computer. If the dealer computer is part of a federal government system, and then it says the system is up for inspection; that tells me the dealer computer is up for inspection.
If it really is this unclear to cause confusion with the teeming millions, then I can definitely see a savvy government lawyer successfully arguing that the government is allowed to do this.
I don’t think this is excusable as being poorly worded or not what the govt intended. I am pretty sure that it doesn’t matter if it is poorly worded or not what was originally intended, or ambigous. If it has the potential to be successfully argued that the government can poke around in a dealers computer; then its my worry that they will do it.
Of course it doesn’t say that “the system is up for inspection”. It says “this system” like, the CARS system.
Hmmmm…
I’m still not seeing that the word “system” is definitely NOT referring to the dealers’s computer. We may hope it refers to the CARS system, but it is too unclear for my liking
This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, **your computer is considered a Federal computer system **and is the property of the United States Government. It is for authorized use only. Users (authorized or unauthorized) have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy.
Any or all uses of **this system **and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign. By using this system, the user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying, auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion CARS or the DoT personnel.
Its a shame that the very sensible message of read “that EULA before you agree to it, there can be some crazy shiat in there!”, is left to a nut-job like Glenn Beck. The private sector can out big brother the feds when it comes to this kind of thing:
Ok, remove the first paragraph. Now read it. You’d agree that “this system” in the abstract refers to the system that you’re accessing when you’re reading the message? Namely, the CARS system?
If you agree with that, proceed to:
Now what about this sentence “When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the United States Government.” changes the fact that when you’re reading this message, the “system” that you’re accessing is the CARS system.
You’re the one that is intent on assuming words and meanings into something that’s clear as day. There’s no linkage between your computer being considered a “federal government system” and the accessing of “this system” other than what you’re reading into it.
This is why they have all those ambiguous pronoun rules in grammar school. Pronouns typically refer back to the last applicable proper noun, and when that is hard to distinguish, it’s suposed to be clarified.
I think that, were you in a courtroom, you’d have about a 50% chance of winning based on your argument. It is UNCLEAR which system “this system” refers to. If you take away the first paragraph, you take away some of the context.
I don’t see how ‘this system’ could possibly apply to the CARS system, because the government doesn’t need to issue disclaimers saying that they have the right to look around on their own computers. That makes absolutely no sense.
The clearest interpretation of this is that once you log on, your computer becomes part of the CARS network, and the government reserves the right to browse any files of any computer on the CARS network. The disclaimer only becomes ‘poorly worded’ when you try to twist it into an interpretation you feel more comfortable with. If you take it at face value, it’s all pretty clear.
Yes, they actually do.
You can’t seriously believe that if you submit a document to one government agency, you’ve automatically ceded your rights to have that document intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized … law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.
it is you who is stretching the definition and contorting grammar to fit into your initial belief that this is a slimy corrupt government program that makes you feel bad.
but hey, the free market response is “if you don’t want the cash, you aren’t being forced to partake in the program” isn’t it?
really? can you show me where it clearly states this?
Here is just one of the Tv-is-spying-on-you links:
http://www.hicktownpress.com/is-your-television-spying-on-you/
I’ve written a few of these disclaimers for Gov’t systems’ login splashes. The only system mine applied to was the one you were logging into. They varied in length depending on the Gov’t and agency we were building the system for, but they all carried language to the effect that everything you do on this machine is recorded and that record may be accessed by the agency, Gov’t, their vendors (me), or any law enforcement the agency or Gov’t wanted to give it to.
The big thing here is that your machine is only a part of the CARS network while it is logged into it. Much of this appears to me to be a statement that if you leave this login open and someone uses it for fraudulent activity we can treat the computer as if it was ours, and we can kick your idiot ass as if you’ve left federal property unsecured. You can’t say that there is data on the computer that is a company secret, because you’ve already given the Gov’t the right to have seen it.
Painful, isn’t? So glad I don’t deal with any Gov’ts anymore.
On the topic of accessing computers that are powered off: I have lights out management cards in each and every server I manage. If there is power flowing to the box, I can turn it on, off, or watch the console from my desk. I also have managed powerstrips, so I can yank the power cables from here too. Of course, my desktop at home has none of these things, and when I tell it to power off, it powers off, and isn’t accessible in anyway until I physically hit the power button.
I think the point is simply that while you are logged on, the government reserves the right to treat your computer as any other node on the network. They can browse it if they need to - i.e. if they believe you are committed fraudulent activity, or attempting to hack into their own files or whatever, they can gather whatever information they need. Being the government, their disclaimers are very broad and give them wide license.
I actually don’t think this is all that big a deal - especially if the disclaimer is issued up-front.
The other possibility is that this was a boilerplate disclaimer some coder put on the page. I notice today the disclaimer is gone.
Thanks for providing some actual information in General Questions and rebutting the snark from beowulff and Justin.
Slightly off topic, but Microsoft has some interesting software that allows law officials by bypass all their own security systems.
>I’m still not seeing that the word “system” is definitely NOT referring to the dealers’s computer. We may hope it refers to the CARS system, but it is too unclear for my liking
If you dont know anything about IT and EULAs, then why are you spreading rumors? Go back to Art Bell’s website or wherever this idiocy comes from.
>your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the United States
FAIL.
>Slightly off topic, but Microsoft has some interesting software that allows law officials by bypass all their own security systems.
No it doesnt. Its a sniffer/keylogger that plugs in via the USB. I could make one in my spare time using free software like wireshark and cain and abel. This is just a dumbed down set of tools for LEOs. There’s no magic MS command thats going to brute force my encrypted items.
Then again once you have physical access to my computer, all is lost. You can keylog the password I use for my private key and copy both.