Privacy - Is it just me?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Actually, Ereaders with 3G are treated identically to cell phones ("you may not") in the UK, when it comes to classified documents. It's nothing really to do with Amazon ofc...

no they're not. at least not in the US and I highly doubt if you have any clear knowledge of British Army Regs.

Originally Posted by TGS

Yeah, but not understanding digital handshakes is not a personality defect, it's just something that someone hasn't had the need to understand up until that point.

understood. I attempted to get to this earlier but someone elses tin hat antics distracted me

[DawnFalcon]

Yea, it's amazing how your own antics with tin foil are distracting when you're chasing an argument which was never made.

And UK. Not "America", not "British Army", UK. Civil service policy. Sorry, no, we're really NOT a state of America here...

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Under UK law, deleting copyrighted data belonging to someone else is theft, if the other party has a copy of the data - which they do (even if their copy was deleted at the same time). It's also unauthorised access under the computer misuse act and fraud, of course.

Ah, a case of it being theft where you live but not where I do.

Not sure about the USA and that would be the real issue since Amazon could only have deleted the content from US kindles since whispernet doesn't work elsewhere. Therefore it may or may not be classed as theft there depending on the law.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yea, it's amazing how your own antics with tin foil are distracting when you're chasing an argument which was never made.

And UK. Not "America", not "British Army", UK. Civil service policy. Sorry, no, we're really NOT a state of America here...

you let the assumption;

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Actually, Ereaders with 3G are treated identically to cell phones ("you may not") in the UK, when it comes to classified documents. It's nothing really to do with Amazon ofc...

be that it was the British Army as that was the main point of my post you were attempting to refute.

regardless.... you are a sore loser, a small id, and certainly not worth my trouble. this discussion is DONE. Amazon answered. no big brother, move on, find another conspiracy to play with

[DawnFalcon]

I'm pleased you acknowledge your flaws, it's always refreshing when a malefactor owns up. But no, I never made any reference to the British Army, you invented that out of thin air. I wasn't trying to "refute" anything either, I was pointing out that in the UK, it is considered an issue.

There is, of course, no conspiracy. That's your ball. The "problem" is simply a broadly and badly written user agreement, which could use clarifying. The issue stands, and for anyone who is not closed-minded and indeed bigoted in the extreme can see - from comments in this very thread - that it is something which can affect purchasing decisions.

[kindlekitten]

*yawn*

[Ben Thornton]

I don't want to get into the middle of a spat, but I work (and have worked over the years) with various parts of UK government, and it is true that you should only use approved devices to store anything above unclassified. I would like to use my reader to proof documents, but I never would even for the lowest classification relating to non-military aspects of government, because I could lose my job by doing so. To use such a device, we would need to get an approved version with appropriate encryption and key management.

So, it surprises me that you are OK to use a Kindle to read US military documents - unless it's all unclassified, in which case that would be fine, of course.

I suspect that there are crossed wires here somewhere.

[kindlekitten]

it was treated like a laptop. the level of security depended upon what could be put on it. so it was acknowledged it was a mobile device, ie; could leave the premises, but as far as anyone remotely accessing the information... that wasn't an issue

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, precisely that - theft (which does fit here, of course) and fraud. And I am of the strong opinion that such cases should be prosecuted in the public interest. A few tens of millions of pounds of fines to demonstrate that would not go amiss, afaik.

(To be clear, I have very little tolerance for any corporation committing fraud.)


kindlekitten - The line I quoted gives them the right to do so. I'd try reading it rather than posting the entire agreement, which not relevant to the point: It does not modify the meaning of the sentence at all, and hence I question why you posted it.

You don't think it's important. Fine. Then why the heck are you trying to make it out that it's not important to anyone, when there are issues which more than a few people here have pointed DO matter to them, to the degree of affecting their purchasing decisions.

It's selfish and short sighted of you to demand that everyone see things your way on the matter.

I guess she is selfish and short sighted if she tries to get people to believe the world is round too. After all she is trying to get people to see reality when they want to believe something else.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I'd be interested in hearing why you believe the term "theft" fits with regards to the mentioned case.

Cheers,
PKFFW

If I remember correctly he believes it is ok to steal content from publishers if it is DRMed or that it is not in the right format. Yet he calls what Amazon does theft. This is really confusing.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Under UK law, deleting copyrighted data belonging to someone else is theft, if the other party has a copy of the data - which they do (even if their copy was deleted at the same time). It's also unauthorised access under the computer misuse act and fraud, of course.

That you misunderstand things so much and make so many accusations is just sad.

As many claims as you have made against Amazon, you should be grateful they are not the evil empire you think they are. Otherwise they would own everything you have and leave you with a huge judgement.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Ah, a case of it being theft where you live but not where I do.

Not sure about the USA and that would be the real issue since Amazon could only have deleted the content from US kindles since whispernet doesn't work elsewhere. Therefore it may or may not be classed as theft there depending on the law.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Not theft in the UK either. DawnFalcon thinks that everything Amazon, specifically and any large corporation in general, does is a crime. He has no real understanding of the the legal documents he looks up.

If you look through the posts, you will see this. Along with his incredible ability to argue with everyone.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it was treated like a laptop. the level of security depended upon what could be put on it. so it was acknowledged it was a mobile device, ie; could leave the premises, but as far as anyone remotely accessing the information... that wasn't an issue

As someone who was in the Army and worked with the NSA on cryptographics, I am really sure that a Kindle would not never be an official approved device to store classified material that leaves the facility, the constant watch of personel that hold the appropriate security clearance, and/or appropriate safe approved by the command.

That is not just because it doesn't have the appropriate technology to encrypt and decrypt the files. It is also because it is not TEMPEST approved.

That said, it may be your bosses allow you to use it. It still doesn't make it the official approved.

I will also admit that I have been out of the loop for years and things may have changed for the worse at the NSA and INSCOM, but I doubt it.

Edited to add our unofficial doctrine for my old unit: "In God we trust. All others we watch."

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by scveteran

As someone who was in the Army and worked with the NSA on cryptographics, I am really sure that a Kindle would not never be an official approved device to store classified material that leaves the facility, the constant watch of personel that hold the appropriate security clearance, and/or appropriate safe approved by the command.

That is not just because it doesn't have the appropriate technology to encrypt and decrypt the files. It is also because it is not TEMPEST approved.

That said, it may be your bosses allow you to use it. It still doesn't make it the official approved.

I will also admit that I have been out of the loop for years and things may have changed for the worse at the NSA and INSCOM, but I doubt it.

Edited to add our unofficial doctrine for my old unit: "In God we trust. All others we watch."

I never meant to infer it was approved for classified documents. like I said, it was treated like a laptop, a mobile unsecure device. the point I was ineffectively trying to make was that the military wasn't worried about the contents being looked at by Amazon. the normal restrictions and protocols afforded any mobile device were afforded it

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I never meant to infer it was approved for classified documents. like I said, it was treated like a laptop, a mobile unsecure device. the point I was ineffectively trying to make was that the military wasn't worried about the contents being looked at by Amazon. the normal restrictions and protocols afforded any mobile device were afforded it

Thank you for the clarification.