Posted on 08/15/2009 2:51:51 PM PDT by Lorianne
Read content at source only
(Excerpt) Read more at snopes.com ...
Beck and his guests were very clear that this affected dealers and not every person who went to the site.
No, it WAS real—they did remove that section, but it was there for several days. Judge Napolitano suggested the policy might be the same, with just the wording gone—in other words, they’re still spying on people, but no longer telling them about it.
Snopes is lying.
I guess that’s their new strategy: when caught, change the offending language, then have Snopes report that it’s a “hoax.”
That's normal.
Snopes’ credibility has been in doubt lately.
So you’re saying the government claimed your computer as their computer on the clunker site? THAT’s the rumor snopes debunked.
If there’s another rumor you’re saying is true, what is it?
As I said—and mind you, screen shots were shown on Glenn Beck—the rumor WAS true, but now is not. They removed that part of the fine print after folks raised a fuss.
Could be. This was the first I’d heard about the whole thing. Thing is, why would the goverment make that a requirement for dealers anyway?
ON THE INTERNET:
#
Click on “privacy” on the bottom of the cars.gov page and it goes to this link:
Note: The following text is a quote:
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html
Home > Privacy Policy
DOT Privacy Program
DOT PRIVACY POLICY
Content updated on August 8, 2006
Our Commitment
We respect your right to privacy and will protect it when you visit our website.
This Privacy Policy explains our online information practices only, including how we collect and use your personal information. It does not apply to third-party websites that you are able to reach from this website, nor does it cover practices of other areas within the Department of Transportation. We encourage you to read those privacy policies to learn how they collect and use your information.
What We Automatically Collect Online
We collect information about your visit that does not identify you personally. We can tell the computer, browser, and web service you are using. We also know the date, time, and pages you visit. Collecting this information helps us design the site to suit your needs. In the event of a known security or virus threat, we may collect information on the web content you view.
Other Information We May Collect
When you visit our website, we may request and collect the following categories of personal information from you:
Contact information
IDs and passwords
Why We Collect Information
Our principal purpose for collecting personal information online is to provide you with what you need and want, address security and virus concerns, and to ease the use of our website.
We will only use your information for the purposes you intended, to address security or virus threats, or for the purposes required under the law. See “Choices on How We Use the Information You Provide” to learn more.
We collect information to:
Respond to your complaints
Reply to your “feedback comments”
Manage your access to restricted areas of the website
Fulfill requests for reports and other similar information
Register you for a member account
Sharing Your Information
We may share personally identifiable information you provide to us online with representatives within the Department of Transportation’s Operating Administrations and related entities, other federal government agencies, or other named representatives as needed to speed your request or transaction. In a government-wide effort to combat security and virus threats, we may share some information we collect automatically, such as IP address, with other federal government agencies.
Also, the law may require us to share collected information with authorized law enforcement, homeland security, and national security activities. See the Privacy Act of 1974 below.
Choices on How We Use the Information You Provide
Throughout our website, we will let you know whether the information we ask you to provide is voluntary or required. By providing personally identifiable information, you grant us consent to use this information, but only for the primary reason you are giving it. We will ask you to grant us consent before using your voluntarily provided information for any secondary purposes, other than those required under the law.
Information Practices for Children
We do not intentionally collect information from children under the age of 13. If in the future we choose to collect personal information from children, we will comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
Cookies or Other Tracking Devices
A “cookie” is a small text file stored on your computer that makes it easy for you to move around a website without continually re-entering your name, password, preferences, for example.
We only use “session” cookies on our website. This means we store the cookie on your computer only during your visit to our website. After you turn off your computer or stop using the Internet, the cookie disappears with your personal information.
Securing Your Information
Properly securing the information we collect online is a primary commitment. To help us do this, we take the following steps to:
Employ internal access controls to ensure the only people who see your information are those with a need to do so to perform their official duties
Train relevant personnel on our privacy and security measures to know requirements for compliance
Secure the areas where we hold hard copies of information we collect online
Perform regular backups of the information we collect online to insure against loss
Use technical controls to secure the information we collect online including but not limited to:
Secure Socket Layer (SSL)
Encryption
Firewalls
Password protections
We periodically test our security procedures to ensure personnel and technical compliance
We employ external access safeguards to identify and prevent unauthorized tries of outsiders to hack into, or cause harm to, the information in our systems
Tampering with DOT’s website is against the law. Depending on the offense, it is punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.
Your Rights Under the Privacy Act of 1974
The Privacy Act of 1974 protects the personal information the federal government keeps on you in systems of records (SOR) (information an agency controls recovered by name or other personal identifier). The Privacy Act regulates how the government can disclose, share, provide access to, and keep the personal information that it collects. The Privacy Act does not cover all information collected online.
The Act’s major terms require agencies to:
Publish a Privacy Act Notice in the Federal Register explaining the existence, character, and uses of a new or revised SOR
Keep information about you accurate, relevant, timely, and complete to assure fairness in dealing with you
Allow you to, on request, access and review your information held in an SOR and request amendment of the information if you disagree with it.
When the DOT collects information from you online that is subject to the Privacy Act (information kept in an SOR), we will provide a Privacy Act Statement specific to that collected information. This Privacy Act Statement tells you:
The authority for and the purpose and use of the information collected subject to the Privacy Act
Whether providing the information is voluntary or mandatory
The effects on you if you do not provide any or all requested information
View our Privacy Act Notices
Our Privacy Practices
For more information or for comments and concerns on our privacy practices, please contact our Departmental Privacy Officer at privacy@dot.gov.
DOT has conducted Privacy Impact Assessments on applicable systems.
View our Privacy Impact Assessments
Home | DOT Agencies | About DOT | News | FAQs | Safety | Dockets | Careers | FOIA
Web Policies & Notices | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | No Fear Act
Other Government Links: USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov | ExpectMore.gov | Regulations.Gov | USAFreedomCorps.gov
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590
Phone: 202-366-4000 | TTY Contact Info
###
###
Off [Thread] Topic:
ON THE INTERNET:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308266/posts?page=126#126
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308266/posts?page=127#127
If this is current, then it’s a REVISION from what a SCREEN SHOT (not word of mouth, people) displayed on the Glenn Beck show. Judge Napolitano was on the set at the same time, along with some Fox lawyer-types.
NOTE:This topic was covered extensively on FR and for the record, I don’t use snopes.
#
Previously...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307432/posts?page=49#49
Here’s there privacy info for cars.gov and they link here:
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html
#
Quote - summary index links at the Official Information link:
http://www.cars.gov/official-information
Official Information
Download The Rule
Download Day One Notice
Download the Law
Download the Amendment
49 posted on August 3, 2009 5:18:20 PM PDT by Cindy
#
Previously...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307432/posts?page=53#53
“Confidential Information and Privacy” section is here:
http://www.cars.gov/files/TheRule.pdf
53 posted on August 3, 2009 5:26:22 PM PDT by Cindy
http://www.cars.gov/files/TheRule.pdf
Quote - Snippet:
Privacy Act Statement
This notice is provided pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 USC § 552a: This information is
solicited under the authority of Public Law 111-32, 123 Stat. 1859. Furnishing the information is
voluntary, but failure to provide all or part of the information may result in disapproval of a request
for a credit on this purchase or lease transaction under the Cars Program. The principal
purposes for collecting the information are to ensure proper disposal of trade-in vehicles, to
prevent, identify and penalize fraud in connection with the Program, and to update an existing
government database of Vehicle Identification Numbers. Other routine uses are published in the
Federal Register at 65 F.R. 19476 (April 11, 2000), available at: www.dot.gov/privacy.
Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor
shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays
a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2127-0658. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately XX
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E., Washington, DC,
20590.
http://www.cars.gov/files/TheRule.pdf
Quote - Snippet:
59
V. Confidential Information and Privacy
60
Administration of the CARS program requires that information about qualifying
transactions be submitted to NHTSA from different entities and individuals. Some of this
data is sensitive. As discussed below, NHTSA is amending its existing regulations
governing confidential treatment, found at 49 CFR Part 512, to address these issues.
a. Determinations of the Confidentiality of CARS Data Based on FOIA Exemptions
4 and 6.
The confidentiality of most CARS data is based on Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) Exemptions 4 and 6, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(6). FOIA Exemption 4 allows
withholding of trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a
person and privileged or confidential. Under Exemption 4, the standard for assessing the
confidentiality of information that parties are required to submit to the government is
whether disclosure of the information is likely to have either of the following effects: (1)
to impair the Government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to
cause substantial competitive harm to the competitive position of the person from whom
the information was obtained.20 National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498
F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Because of the nature of the information at issue here,
our discussion is limited to examination of the competitive harm test even though other
standards could justify non-disclosure.21
20
The term “trade secrets” has been narrowly defined by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit for the purpose of FOIA Exemption 4 as encompassing a secret, commercially valuable plan,
formula, process, or device that is used for the making, preparing, compounding, or processing of trade
commodities and that can be said to be the end product of either innovation or substantial effort. Public
Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
21
Impairment to the Government’s ability to obtain the information in the future serves as an independent
basis for withholding under Exemption 4. See National Parks, 498 F.2d at 770. Case law also strongly
points to the availability of a “third prong” protecting other governmental interests, such as compliance and
program effectiveness. See Critical Mass v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (noting that
Exemption 4 can protect interests beyond impairment and competitive harm. See also 9 to 5 Org. for
Women Office Workers v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Res. System, 721 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1983)
61
Under the competitive harm test of National Parks, there must be actual
competition and a likelihood of substantial competitive injury from disclosure of the
information. CNA Financial Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
This standard requires only that disclosure of information would “likely” cause
competitive harm. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of the Air Force, 375 F.3d
1182, 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. SEC, 873 F.2d 325,
341 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Under this test, the agency assesses the likelihood of substantial
injury; it does not make that assessment and then further balance it against other matters
such as the public’s interest in the information. Public Citizen Health Research Group v.
FDA, 185 F.3d 898, 904-05(D.C. Cir. 1999)
Exemption 6 of the FOIA addresses the withholding of “personnel and medical
files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy” to the subject of those files. See 5 U.S.C. 52(b)(6). The
first inquiry in examining withholding information under Exemption 6 is a determination
of what data is at stake and the nature and degree of any privacy interest in the
information. The second step is an assessment of the public interest in disclosure. Under
Exemption 6, the concept of public interest is limited to shedding light on the
government’s performance of its statutory duties. U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters
Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989); National Ass’n of Retired
Federal Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1989); cf., DOD v. FLRA,
510 U.S. 487, 497 (1994). Finally, there is a weighing of the privacy interests at stake
(adopting a third prong under Exemption 4 based on the government’s interest in administrative efficiency
and effectiveness).
62
against the public interest in disclosure. Ripkis v. Dept. Hous. and Urban Dev., 746 F.2d
1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Data submitted under the CARS program includes personally identifying
information for consumers. This information falls within the classification of “similar
files” under Exemption 6. In Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 809 F. Supp. 148 (D.D.C. 1993), an advocacy group sought the release of
names and addresses of consumers filing complaints directly to NHTSA. The Court
found that the complainant’s names and addresses invoked a privacy interest within the
scope of Exemption 6 and ruled in favor of non-disclosure because there was no
ascertainable public interest of sufficient significance or certainty to outweigh a
complainant’s privacy right justifying release of the information.
b. Approach — Class Determinations vs. Individual Assessments
As employed in the agency’s regulations governing confidentiality determinations
(49 CFR Part 512), class determinations declare that certain categories of data submitted
to NHTSA will be kept confidential. Under this approach, submitters need not request
confidential treatment; such treatment is given automatically.
NHTSA is promulgating class determinations on the confidentiality of some
categories of CARS data. In adopting this approach, we have considered a number of
matters. First, NHTSA may adopt categorical rules to manage the tasks Congress
assigned to it under the CARS Act. Public Citizen v. Mineta, 427 F. Supp. 2d 7, 13 (D.
D.C. 2006). Second, we have identified and assessed the alternatives. One alternative is
to require entities to submit individual requests for confidentiality for each transaction. A
second alternative is presumptive categorical determinations of confidentiality. A third
63
alternative is to adopt binding class determinations. Concerns involved in considering
these alternatives include providing clear direction to CARS participants, predictability,
consistency and efficiency.
Requiring individual requests for confidential treatment of CARS data would
force thousands of entities, almost all of them small businesses, to submit requests for
confidentiality for each transaction. These entities, having virtually no experience in
making such requests, would likely submit a wide variety of documents written in
different ways. Some requests would meet the applicable standards for confidential
treatment and some would not. Given our past experience with first-time requests, many
would not meet procedural requirements, would be denied and would then be followed by
reconsideration requests. The burden imposed on entities requesting confidential
treatment and on the agency would be substantial. NHTSA already receives about 550
requests for confidential treatment every year. Adding the expected number of CARS
submissions to the existing confidentiality request workload would overwhelm the
agency and lead to a huge backlog. Consistent with our practice, information would be
withheld until NHTSA decides if it is confidential. Disclosure of rightfully public
information would be delayed and the public interest would be impacted, particularly if
other agency resources were diverted to address the backlog. In view of the foregoing,
requiring and processing individual requests for confidential treatment for CARS data is
not a viable alternative.
A second alternative is presumptive class determinations. Presumptive
determinations are a middle ground between ad hoc determinations and binding class
determinations. Unlike the latter, that operate automatically, presumptive determinations
64
require submitters to provide abbreviated written requests and supporting justifications.
In our view, presumptive confidentiality determinations are inappropriate for CARS.
While presumptive determinations would provide direction to NHTSA’s clients and
avoid inconsistent confidentiality determinations, they would not eliminate individual
confidentiality requests and the significant burdens those requests would impose.
A third alternative is to proceed by binding rule. Binding determinations for
CARS data are appropriate mechanisms to address the confidentiality of sensitive data.
CARS reports are submitted by filling out standardized electronic templates that are used
repeatedly. Each manufacturer, dealer and salvage yard files the same reports as other
CARS participants in the same category.
Binding determinations provide direction to the regulated community. They also
assure consistency and avoid resource burdens, particularly for small businesses. They
conserve agency resources that would otherwise be used to respond to thousands of
individual confidentiality requests and allow more rapid disclosure of information that is
not confidential. This is in the public interest. In view of the foregoing, NHTSA believes
that binding determinations are appropriate.
c. Class Determinations Based on FOIA Exemption 4
FOIA Exemption 4 covers commercial or financial information obtained from a
person that is privileged or confidential. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). The terms “commercial” or
“financial” information are given their ordinary meanings. Public Citizen Health
Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Some CARS data meet
this element of Exemption 4.22 Second, the information must be obtained from a
22
See the discussion of the categories of CARS information below. Those discussions demonstrate that the
submitters have a commercial interest in the data.
65
“person.” The word “person” encompasses business establishments, including
corporations. See FlightSafety Servs. v. Dep’t of Labor, 326 F.3d 607, 611 (5th Cir.
2003). CARS data from manufacturers, dealers and salvage auctions and disposal
facilities is obtained from persons within the meaning of Exemption 4. Third, the
information must be confidential. As noted above, the National Parks Court declared
that commercial or financial data is “confidential” for the purposes of Exemption 4 if
disclosure of the information would be likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the
competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained. 498 F.2d at
770. Actual competitive harm need not be demonstrated; actual competition and a
likelihood of substantial competitive injury is all that need be shown. CNA Financial
Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
We now turn to certain categories of information that manufacturers, dealers and
disposal facilities must submit under the CARS rule.
d. Data Submitted to NHTSA for the CARS Program
1. Manufacturer Data
Vehicle manufacturers will provide NHTSA with both dealer and vehicle
information needed for administration of the CARS program. The dealer information is
used to identify dealers and determine if they are authorized new car dealers for a
particular make. Manufacturers will provide NHTSA with information about the vehicles
they manufacture.
2. Dealer Information and Transaction Data
New car dealers participating in the CARS program must submit information
related to their business as well as data for individual sales. To take part in the CARS
66
program, dealers must register with NHTSA. The required registration data includes
identifying information and the identity and contact information for a designated CARS
contact person. Once registered, dealers have to submit information needed to establish a
CARS account. This includes the registration data discussed above and additional data
needed for financial transactions. For each individual sale, dealers also submit dealer
data, new vehicle purchaser data, trade-in vehicle data, and new vehicle data.
3. Disposal Facility Information and Destruction Data
Disposal Facilities are required to submit certifications to NHTSA regarding their
business operations and to verify proper destruction of CARS trade-in vehicles.
e. CARS Data Class Determinations Based on FOIA Exemption 4
With a few exceptions, the data submitted by businesses participating in the
CARS program is already a matter of public record. Dealer addresses, telephone
numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are freely given. Other information, such as a
dealer or salvage yard business license number, legal name and legal address, are
available through public records. Still more data can be ascertained through publicly
available search engines. For example, Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) for
businesses are routinely released on tax forms, public filings and, in some instances, on
employee pay stubs. As a result, an employer’s EIN may be searched and retrieved by
name from a number of web based providers for a nominal fee. Nonetheless, some data
provided to NHTSA under the CARS program is not publicly available and entitled to
confidential treatment. This data is discussed below.
1. Manufacturer Assigned Dealer Identification
67
Vehicle manufacturers assign identification codes to their individual dealers. One
manufacturer, Ford, indicates that these codes are confidential and that release of this
information would be likely to cause competitive harm by increasing the possibility of
fraud perpetrated by impostors using dealer codes. Because fraudulent use of this
information would be likely to cause competitive harm, this final rule establishes a class
determination extending confidential treatment to these manufacturer assigned dealer
codes.
2. Dealer Bank Name, ABA Routing Number, Bank Account Number
Participating dealers will be identifying their bank, its American Banking
Association (ABA) routing number and a bank account number in forms submitted to
NHTSA. This information is kept confidential by these dealers and its release would
cause substantial harm to those dealers. Public disclosure of this information presents an
open and obvious potential for fraud or abuse that could result in serious financial loss.
Indeed, even the inadvertent disclosure of a bank account number and a subsequent
change to another account can cause significant disruption in business operations. The
agency believes that a class determination is an appropriate means for protecting this
information.
3. CARS Dealer ID and CARS Authorization Codes
NHTSA will provide participating dealers with unique identifiers for CARS
purposes and issue CARS authorization codes for individual CARS transactions. Dealers
must use this unique identifier and authorization code when submitting requests for
reimbursement. Public disclosure of a dealer’s unique CARS ID and authorization code
increases the potential that this identifier will be used improperly or to perpetuate fraud.
68
Unauthorized and improper use of the unique CARS ID and code would be likely to
cause the “owner” of the ID to suffer competitive harm. The legitimate “owner” of the
ID and authorization code may be subject to financial claims, suspension or removal from
the CARS program and other costs associated with improper use of a CARS code and ID.
Accordingly, this final rule establishes a class determination according confidential
treatment to this data.
f. Class Determination Based on FOIA Exemption 6
The CARS rule requires dealers to provide NHTSA with the name, address,
telephone number, state identification number, trade-in vehicle VIN, trade-in insurance
information and new vehicle VIN for consumers participating in the CARS program.
NHTSA has long held the view that Exemption 6 of the FOIA authorizes confidential
treatment of consumer personally identifying information. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6).
Accordingly, consumer names, addresses and telephone numbers are routinely accorded
confidential treatment. The agency’s policy has been to redact personal identifiers from
owner complaints (whether filed directly with the agency or from documents obtained
from manufacturers in the course of a defect investigation) before placing them on the
public record.
The privacy interest in protecting personal identifiers and contact information is
no less compelling when a consumer purchases a new vehicle under the CARS program.
Furthermore, disclosure of personal identifiers and the erosion of privacy that would
result might dissuade consumers from participating in CARS. This would frustrate
achievement of the program’s principal goal – to encourage replacement of older less fuel
efficient vehicles with new more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
69
The consumer data at issue – name, address, telephone number, state
identification number and vehicle identification number (VIN) – is within the scope of
Exemption 6. VINs, when coupled with other data, can be used to identify vehicle
owners and obtain other personal data. As this data has privacy implications, the next
inquiry is an assessment of the public interest in disclosure. Congress has directed the
disclosure of trade-in vehicle VINs to the commercial market to help verify destruction of
these vehicles. For the remaining personal data, the concept of public interest under
Exemption 6 is limited to shedding light on the government’s performance of its statutory
duties. United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the
Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989); National Ass’n of Retired Federal Employees v.
Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1989); cf., DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 497
(1994). With the limited redaction of part of the VIN under this rulemaking, the public
would be able to review identification of the make, model and model year of the new
vehicle. This apprises the public of information central to the core purpose of the CARS
program. Disclosing additional VIN information, with the sequential number unique to
the vehicle, that would enable someone to identify the owner of the new vehicle and other
personal information would not, however, further serve the public interest. If disclosed,
it would not answer the question of “what the government is up to.” Reporters Comm.,
489 U.S. at 773 (1989).
The final step in an Exemption 6 analysis is weighing the competing privacy and
public interests against one another. See Ripskis v. HUD, 746 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
In the case of the CARS VIN information, there is a privacy interest in not being
contacted about a new vehicle purchase, such as by companies selling warranties. On the
other hand, the public interest, in terms of information that reveals “what the government
is up to” is better served by other publicly available information. On balance, NHTSA
has concluded that the privacy interests in non-disclosure of consumer personal
identifying information outweigh the limited public interest served by disclosing this
information when other data is available to better address public concerns.
NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Part 512 by revising Appendix E to provide new
class determinations applying to information provided for the CARS program. These
class determinations do not apply as a rule of general application to the agency’s
treatment of similar information in other instances. Revising Appendix E requires
addition of a new Appendix F to accommodate information previously found in
Appendix E.
That darn cat and its post it note route. How serious can a site be that relies on that type of office communication? People believe what they want to believe.
Well, that makes me feel soooo much better now. I knew our government would never do anything sneaky like that.
Snopes uses a script (program) written in Java to disable right clicking on their site.
If you want to cut and paste, click on View on your brower's tool bar and then scroll down and click on source. You'll see the HTML source for for the page. It can be a bit confusing, but if you hunt around you can find the text for the page.
What a shame that Glenn Beck sat there and lied through his teeth about how this was a “dangerous” web site and how “you shouldn’t do this at home.”
I figure, if he lies to me about this, what other lies is he telling. Complete loss of credibility.
You believe Snopes?
Thank, nice tip.
I suppose Snopes made the fake doctor a real doctor, too.
Not necessarily.
But I did watch Beck's piece on this via You Tube (I don't watch TV).
Here's what Snopes wrote about this:
Although Beck did mention that the statement was something dealers would encounter, he and his co-discussionist in that segment, FOX News anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle, also misleadingly implied that it applied to consumers, telling the audience "I recommend that you do not try this at home" and "People shouldn't go on [the CARS.gov site] right now," and asserting that clicking on the web site would give the government complete access to consumers' home computers.Actually, Snopes was pretty mild on Beck. Because, in truth, Beck said "dealer" exactly one time in that segment. The rest of the time he referred to "you."
Link to the segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE&feature=topvideos
Go watch for yourself. Understand that there's two sides to cars.gov. One for us for information, with web pages that have a green background, and another for dealers, with pages that have a blue background, so they can submit the payment request, etc.
During Beck's piece you'll see only the blue screen. Beck was not accessing the consumer side of the site, he was accessing the dealer side of the site and it's the dealer side of the site that has the warning.
You’re welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.