• Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:54 am**

Well, that's one example of what what will happen if the government gets its way and removes data encryption so they can access information more easily.

It'll mean that more people will be able to hack into accounts.

Still, there are those who say if you've nothing to hide...... I presume they'd be happy to pay any ransomware demands in future.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:04 am**

If we've learned anything over the last 15 years it's that our government won't ever let a terrorist attack go unexploited when it comes to invading our privacy and eroding our rights.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:12 am**

What we need is more Plod on the streets and a PCSO wandering round chatting to the community. Bin the CCTV, proactive policing and use of technology- a good whistle and a cape and we will be sorted.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:37 am**

Don't really understand what you're suggesting is being proposed nor would I be IT savvy enough to understand it anyway. However if the government was suggesting they should have the power to break encryption in very exceptional circumstances like terrorism activity, whilst being able to assure everyone else their data is safe, I'd be supportive. All sensible options for managing terrorist activity should at least be explored, and something will need to happen from a IT point of view.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:41 am**

taio wrote:whilst being able to assure everyone else their data is safe, I'd be supportive.

But that's impossible. As soon as you put a "backdoor" into any code it'll make it far easier for any hacker to get in. That's the major problem.

It'll mean even more people can gain access to your information.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:45 am**

There's always an IT solution to be developed.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:42 am**

taio wrote:There's always an IT solution to be developed.

You mean like the NHS were able to stop being hacked recently?

Still, if you are happy to allow your bank account etc. being hacked then so be it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:44 am**

Not sure he has said he is happy for his account to be hacked

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:54 am**

We can't even trust the government not to use anti-terrorism laws to see who's leaving their bins out too long, so how can anyone trust the government with the ability to riffle through our private correspondance? Didn't we used to laugh at how the Soviets would do this with peoples letters and how paranoid their state was?

We're not so much sleepwalking as we are running into the open arms of authoritarianism.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:07 am**

Your details are already shared/sold anyway. I've lost count of the number of cold calls I get on my cell phone, despite being a very private and security conscious person. Nobody should know my number outside of business acquaintances, family and friends but they do. Even when you sign something that states it will not be sold to third parties. It invariably is.
Besides, if you think your records are not already being scrutinised, you're sadly mistaken.
I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but we live in a world where every detail is available at the right price. One reason I only keep a current account and always take all my money out in cash as soon as it goes in. Don't trust banks AT ALL, don't trust the government (whoever is in power) and on this, and for probably the one and only time (possibly fox hunting aside, which is barbaric) I'd agree with IT in that our details should not be allowed to be accessed by anybody or any organisation without permission or unless there is definite proof that they are involved in criminal activity.
It may seem trivial but my fiancee is even more strict than I. She received a text the other day off Asda. She has never, ever divulged her phone number to ANY company, yet they got it from somewhere; they even knew her name. Who knows what else they know?!

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:36 am**

With the right resources, we as a country could improve our surveillance and security online in a matter of months.

Issue personal digital certficates, with a combined biometric 2 way client response mechanism. You can't get online without the certificate. Then, we can control who goes online and we can see what they see, or block access to whatever we want.

"What about the dark web?" blah blah blah. Block access to it.

The 'Internet' is fed to us believe it or not by physical pipes on the seabed, approx 35 into the UK. We just need to monitor the request/reponses going through those 35 nodes.
http://www.submarinecablemap.com/

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:39 am**

I don't have a credit card.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:42 am**

MACCA wrote:I don't have a credit card.

This is the perfect post to sum up the apathy of the people of this country when it comes to their own rights.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:55 am**

Most of your information is either sold or hacked.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:23 am**

Imploding Turtle wrote: This is the perfect post to sum up the apathy of the people of this country when it comes to their own rights.

Why worry about your rights when there are plenty of people out there, that will do the worrying for you....

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:24 am**

MACCA wrote:Why worry about your rights when there are plenty of people out there, that will do the worrying for you....

At least you know Turtle will always care about your rights.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:33 am**

Spijed wrote:Well, that's one example of what what will happen if the government gets its way and removes data encryption so they can access information more easily.

It'll mean that more people will be able to hack into accounts.

Still, there are those who say if you've nothing to hide...... I presume they'd be happy to pay any ransomware demands in future.

Why would the government need to remove encryption of credit cards? The point about data encryption is that some sites are facilitating secure messaging, which is used for terrorist plots, and won't tell the government what's going on through their channels. The banks, so far as I know, can already be accessed via court order in the case of suspected criminal activity.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:35 am**

Simple answer to the OP. No I wouldn't be happy about it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:42 am**

Sidney1st wrote:At least you know Turtle will always care about your rights.

Absolutely, and he can be offended for me too, however hopefully I won't get involved in a serious situation where he needs to protest my innocence to anyone that will listen though.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:49 am**

Sidney1st wrote:At least you know Turtle will always care about your rights.

It's my human rights i'm protecting. The problem is that i understand that I only have human rights if everyone has them. So by default i'd defending yours too when i'm arguing against people like MACCA who want to give them up just so that a few people we don't like don't get them too.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:51 am**

Its not just access to stuff like credit cards. Theirs a certain amount of stuff that should remain private. And they need to focus on tackling the issue in better ways. Treating us all as the same is a **** poor way of addressing it.

Basically because a small percentage of people are causing heinous crimes they are thrn going to punish us all as a result and it will affect our civil liberties.

Have I got anything to hide? No. Do i want the government reading personal messages I exchange? No. Its not because I am a criminal but because some things should remain private. Give them better access to unlock devices not encrypted messaging itself.

This is the equivelent of the government putting cameras and listening devices in everyones houses to weed out terrorists.

The cynic in me believes this is what they wanted

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:24 am**

Quite apart from the civil liberties which can be argued either way, the simple fact of the matter is that it's entirely unimplementable.

Encryption exists, it's open source, the only way to block it is to stop every phone, computer, router, web-connected tv, games console, etc in the UK from running software that hasn't been approved by the government (and confiscate any foreign one at the border).

The alternative is that every ISP, mobile phone company, etc will have to inspect every piece of data that passes through their network and block everything that's encrypted. Of course that will also stop any form of security for logging in to any website, using online banking, stopping your router being hacked, stopping businesses based at more than one site or remote workers logging in securely to a work network, ...

It's a laughable proposition that Theresa May has been pushing for years. Whether or not she's stupid or naive people can decide for themselves but neither is really an excuse. She gets away with it because the civil liberties aspect over-rules the batshit crazy implementation of it aspect and people actually believe the lie of strong encryption with a backdoor.

For anyone who wants more information, this was a decent article https://boingboing.net/2017/06/04/there ... anute.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:29 am**

No I'm definitely not.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:49 am**

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's my human rights i'm protecting. The problem is that i understand that I only have human rights if everyone has them. So by default i'd defending yours too when i'm arguing against people like MACCA who want to give them up just so that a few people we don't like don't get them too.

Where did Macca say he wanted to give them up?

His comment was "I don't have a credit card"

Neither do I for that matter.
I also know the DVLA sell information all the time, insurance companies pass information on too.
No one stops any of that though...

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:07 pm**

Sidney1st wrote:Where did Macca say he wanted to give them up?

His comment was "I don't have a credit card"

Neither do I for that matter.
I also know the DVLA sell information all the time, insurance companies pass information on too.
No one stops any of that though...

In another thread when he said we should kill 500 people who haven't committed a crime.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:08 pm**

Just picture the scene: In the days following a terrorist attack in which many innocent people are slaughtered by a small group of home-grown terrorists, questions get asked of the security services as to how this was allowed to happen.

"Were the 3 men who committed the attack known to us?"
"Yes, we've been monitoring them since they attended a hate rally last year"
"Well how did we not know this was going to happen?"
"Because they only communicated on whatsapp. We intercepted thousands of messages but we cant read them as they're encrypted. These messages probably would have alerted us to their plan, and provided proof of all known associates and everyone who helped facilitate the attack. There is a high chance that we could have stopped this from happening."
"Can the makers of whatsapp not decrypt the messages for us?"
"Yes. Better than that. Whatsapp store all messages on their databases forever, even the ones you delete. They have the technical ability to provide all messages to us decrypted, for any suspected terrorist."
"Well, why don't they?"
"They refuse."
"Why?"
"Data Protection laws. The same ones that protect you and me, also protect terrorists and paedophiles. Also profit. They make money offering encryption and people will stop buying if they start handing over decrypted messages."
"Well could the laws not be altered so that if there is enough evidence to suspect that someone is plotting a terror attack that this protection is lifted, only for specified individuals over a time frame determined and ordered by a court?"
"Yes they could. But there are some people think their credit card details are now going to be available online. Others simply do not trust the government not to abuse this power because of their track record of abusing such powers. Finally Whatsapp and other similar companies will fight it tooth and nail as it will cost them money and massively cut future profits. "
"Oh."

What a time to be alive.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:11 pm**

Imploding Turtle wrote:In another thread when he said we should kill 500 people who haven't committed a crime.

Lies again. I said anyone known to be associated with terrorusts/terrorism.

People are NOT classed as being a high risk to the public by simply going about their everyday lives.

But let's not get onto that subject again, you've ruined 1 thread, let's not do it to this 1.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:17 pm**

MACCA wrote:Lies again. I said anyone known to be associated with terrorusts/terrorism.

People are NOT classed as being a high risk to the public by simply going about their everyday lives.

But let's not get onto that subject again, you've ruined 1 thread, let's not do it to this 1.

you think that makes what you said better than how i characterised it?

And you and Sidney were the ones who took our discussion here down this avenue.

And by the way, here's what you acturally said:

MACCA wrote:Come on, If you are living with a terrorist, buying things for a terrorist, talking to a terrorist you are innocent and really don't know what they are up to?

The police had a list of 500 men they thought posed severe risk to other people. You think not killing them all wouldn't have saved at least 30 INNOCENT as well as children's lives in the last 2 weeks? Locking a man up for 8 years when he could have potentially killed 100's of people is the right thing to do?

I think you are either on the wind up or a bit short.

I trust that ends things.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:20 pm**

Imploding Turtle wrote: you think that makes what you said better than how i characterised it?

And you and Sidney were the ones who took our discussion here down this avenue.

Yes as one is telling the truth

The other is making up lies to suit your agenda.

I simply replied " I don't have a credit card " mearly stating a fact.

You then said it was me writing off my rights, due to a few people I hate... wrong AGAIN.

Stop listening to the men in your head.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:22 pm**

MACCA wrote:Yes as one is telling the truth

The other is making up lies to suit your agenda.

I simply replied " I don't have a credit card " mearly stating a fact.

You then said it was me writing off my rights, due to a few people I hate... wrong AGAIN.

Stop listening to the men in your head.

I said it was a good example of the apathy expressed by many people in this country when it comes to their rights. The "it won't affect me" attitude.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:27 pm**

some one stole my credit card the other year but are spending less than my wife so not reported it

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:29 pm**

The thing is, you can't ban encryption, its childlike to suggest you can. Its the same as trying to ban maths.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:30 pm**

dushanbe wrote:The thing is, you can't ban encryption, its childlike to suggest you can. Its the same as trying to ban maths.

Not a ban but there were some american politicians who once tried to use legislation to change the value of pi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:28 pm**

Newty wrote:"Yes. Better than that. Whatsapp store all messages on their databases forever, even the ones you delete. They have the technical ability to provide all messages to us decrypted, for any suspected terrorist."

An excellent fantasy apart from this being completely wrong. Whatsapp can't decrypt those messages and have no ability to read them.

Maybe read my comments above, read the link to gain some actual understanding of the issue.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:09 pm**

Imploding Turtle wrote: you think that makes what you said better than how i characterised it?

And you and Sidney were the ones who took our discussion here down this avenue.

And by the way, here's what you acturally said:

I trust that ends things.

Absolutely.

Aslong as it shows ( which it does ) me not saying 500 innocent people deserve to die, and in fact only those involved in terrorism/terrorists should, which in turn WOULD have saved at least 30 innocent people including children.

But you keep trying to defend the indefensible, and select certain words to suit your agenda on advice from the voices in your mind.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:26 pm**

MACCA wrote:Absolutely.

Aslong as it shows ( which it does ) me not saying 500 innocent people deserve to die, and in fact only those involved in terrorism/terrorists should, which in turn WOULD have saved at least 30 innocent people including children.

But you keep trying to defend the indefensible, and select certain words to suit your agenda on advice from the voices in your mind.

How do you know they're involved in terrorism? Have they commited and been convicted of a terrorist related crime? No. And since we live in England and not Saudi Arabia they're innocent until proven otherwise. Therefore you want to kill innocent people.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:30 pm**

Ignore the troll

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:32 pm**

ok. So im a troll now. you want to kill innocent people in the UK but i'm the troll.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:37 pm**

Kettle calling frying pan sooty bottom Macca?

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:11 pm**

Turtle,yet another thread you have hijacked and bored most people to death.
How do you find the time to spend do much of your life on here. Do you have a job and if do what is it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:52 pm**

chorleyhere wrote:Kettle calling frying pan sooty bottom Macca?

I might have a bit of a laugh or pull someone's leg every now again, but I certainly won't use the deaths of innocent people including children to use as bait to wind people up.

Like several posters have said, he hijacks threads to turn into the turtle show, with the sole aim of trying to get a bite even when totally wrong.
It would argue black was white if it got him a 4 pager!

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:58 pm**

I seriously believe IT needs medical help.
Like others before him he has attention seeking syndrome,it id a commonly known medical condition.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:21 pm**

Nobody cares what kind of porn you watch.
Calm down

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:02 pm**

Spijed wrote:Well, that's one example of what what will happen if the government gets its way and removes data encryption so they can access information more easily.

It'll mean that more people will be able to hack into accounts.

Still, there are those who say if you've nothing to hide...... I presume they'd be happy to pay any ransomware demands in future.

My credit cards have been "hacked" at least three times:
1) 1998/99 - someone enjoyed themselves buying several cases of fine wine, 3 separate purchases, each at least £500. When I got my Jan statement I thought, "wow, Christmas was even more expensive than I'd intended..." Credit card company refunded on the day I reported it.
2) 2002/03 - someone ordered a new credit card and arranged collection from a branch in Croydon (I don't live near Croydon, rarely go there - expect Selhurt Park) - bank asked him to bring his passport when he collected, so seems there was a forged passport involved also. When he'd collected the card he visited Thomas Cook and bought >£1,500 of USD. Half-an-hour later he'd done the same at M&S Travel Services. The bank got in touch with me after the second FX cash withdrawal. I've still no idea why they didn't contact me at home when the replacement card was ordered. Cost me nothing - cost the bank quite a bit.
3) My corporate credit card was cloned 2015. Someone tried to pay for hotels and other stuff in a number of cities in the US. A couple of charges went through, but I'd already max'd out the card elsewhere and so the poor guy was running around trying to get credit with a card that was already overspent.

I've no problem with anyone having my credit card number(s). They need more than that to try and "rob me" these days. And, I'm also relaxed about all my other personal details. It's more important that we all get to grips with the laxness of internet security. All the big internet firms are worth an absolute fortune. I'd set new rules on how their systems operate. They have to be secure for society and "do no evil." If they fail in these things the financial penalties will "shut them down." I'd rather the internet was shut down than a member of my family or any of my friends or anyone else in the UK or anywhere else in the world was harmed as a result of the communication facilities that the internet provides. How many lives is FaceBook worth? or Google? of WhatsApp? or any of the others? or this message board?

Yes, I'm sure there will be a few (or many) who will scream "but you can't infringe our freedom..." Isn't it odd that most of those that will do that are also the ones that look with envy at the wealth of the "internet billionaires...." and insist that they should pay their taxes.

I also know that the choice isn't so stark. I'm sure if there is a will the internet can be made secure for society and safe from the threats of the "Bad men, very bad men." Yes, it may reduce the value of some of the internet companies and yes, it might be a little less convenient for everyone to post on message boards. But, how much of our convenience is worth even one person harmed?

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:41 pm**

The choice is that stark, Paul. Encryption either works for / against everyone, or no-one (essentially). If there's a way for the govt to de-encrypt data sent electronically, then "bad men" will find a way to exploit it.

And the idea of shutting down the internet at this stage is just ludicrous. Even if it were possible (I have no idea), I think you underestimate just how much harm that would do - it's more than just Facebook and Up The Clarets, you know.

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:10 pm**

Paul Waine wrote:it might be a little less convenient for everyone to post on message boards. But, how much of our convenience is worth even one person harmed?

It's not whether it would be convenient or inconvenient, it's whether the post that says it's coming from Paul Waine is coming from Paul Waine or just someone pretending to be him (of course that won't be just on UTC, it will also be on the HMRC website, on your email, on your online bank, on your physical bank, on your work login, ...)

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:43 pm**

aggi wrote:It's not whether it would be convenient or inconvenient, it's whether the post that says it's coming from Paul Waine is coming from Paul Waine or just someone pretending to be him (of course that won't be just on UTC, it will also be on the HMRC website, on your email, on your online bank, on your physical bank, on your work login, ...)

Yes, great point, aggi. And, as above I've experience of someone forging my passport - though with their own photo and not mine.

So, perhaps part of the solution is ID cards - before anyone screams, these are common in most democratic nations - plus photos and confirmation of their real identity before anyone can access the internet. Perhaps some "two step" verification so that if someone else gets hold of an ID card it is no use to them. When I go to a pub or go to a game the people I am speaking with know who I am and I know who they are. Would the internet be the same if all the "avatars" disappeared and we all conversed as our real selves?

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:22 pm**

Paul Waine wrote:Yes, great point, aggi. And, as above I've experience of someone forging my passport - though with their own photo and not mine.

So, perhaps part of the solution is ID cards - before anyone screams, these are common in most democratic nations - plus photos and confirmation of their real identity before anyone can access the internet. Perhaps some "two step" verification so that if someone else gets hold of an ID card it is no use to them. When I go to a pub or go to a game the people I am speaking with know who I am and I know who they are. Would the internet be the same if all the "avatars" disappeared and we all conversed as our real selves?

But you have no way for the ID card database to communicate securely with the rest of the internet, you don't have functioning encryption.

Posted: **Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:44 am**

Spijed wrote:But that's impossible. As soon as you put a "backdoor" into any code it'll make it far easier for any hacker to get in. That's the major problem.

It'll mean even more people can gain access to your information.

The problem is hackers already break into and use all sorts of information illegally. The security services can't use the same technology because their hands are tied. Giving access to the Police won't open doors to the criminals, they're there already.

Posted: **Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:06 am**

aggi wrote:But you have no way for the ID card database to communicate securely with the rest of the internet, you don't have functioning encryption.

Good morning, aggi. I don't think I've suggested that secure communications won't exist. I'm suggesting a way that all internet users are accurately identified, so we know that it is "Paul Waine" when I access the internet and so we know "aggi's" real identify when you access the internet - and we build the security in such a way that neither you nor I can be impersonated by someone else - and no one else can "borrow" our identities to access the internet as though they were "Paul Waine" or "aggi."

The same ID cards plus technology could be used to identify everyone undertaking financial transactions - as operates across the world for all "anti-money laundering regulations." The anti-ML legislation has been in place since the mid-1990s, but, of course, needs more safeguards to prevent internet financial fraud, rather than the fraud being enabled by the weaknesses in the current internet protocols that enable the "pretence" that you are speaking with your bank or a legitimate business, but in reality someone with criminal intent is hiding behind the internet's weaknesses.

We might also use "secure positive identification" to eliminate the "spamming" by advertisers by enabling internet users to sign up to a "no spam/no junk mail" database that advertisers could use to check if you want their ad. Maybe we could incentivise the advertiser/internet service by requiring them to make a small payment to anyone who they send an ad to who had signed up not to receive their ad. Imagine how much better the internet would be if we didn't need to avoid unwanted ads.

Yes, my idea is about transparency and visibility. The internet has enabled a "cloak of invisibility" and, given human nature and our weaknesses, this invisibility has facilitated the development of lots of stuff that is anti-social and results in harm to individuals and sections of society.

Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?

Re: Are you happy for your credit card details to be freely available?