But you still buy Gas. Thank you for proving my point perfectly.
What point exactly is that? That you still have to keep doing things to live? News at 11 and all that.
I simply gave you a concrete example of how I have boycotted something refuting your point that you "can't". If most sheeple aren't going to play along not much you can do, but you can still make your own personal stand on issues. Apparently you'd just sit there and take it. How many issues have you written your congressman about this year? I'm guessing zero. I probably average 2-3 letters a month. If you aren't speaking up, you have no credibility to criticize the results.
Considering your Governor makes up lies about immigrants and refuses to recant them for months of being asked to produce evidence.
Considering your Governor signed a law to imprison multitudes of people...which was written by her aides who have close ties to the private prison system in Arizona.
Considering McCain's complete abdication of anything resembling integrity to get reelected.
I'd think you'd consider those more of an insult since its being done in your name...
Sources? Last I checked office buildings had the same sunlight hitting them as anything else;-)
Seriously though, there will be a constant supply of heated air moving through thus keeping this tube at a relatively constant temperature compared with the solar energy hitting it. Paint it white and even less heating occurs.
Fair enough, though I'm sure quite a few animals lived on the area of open pit mining too. The upside here is that there is far less environmental disruption for this than other power sources.
It's just a hollow tube with some minor reinforcement. Hell you can use guide wires like they do for radio towers. There's very little cost compared to an occupied office building/residence like the Dubai tower.
My family member's medical bill have passed $300k and it isn't done yet, and that's not out of line for a severe injury
How much of that would you be covered for? If you're really lucky, the person who hit you might have $100k in insurance. How much more is your own insurance going to pick up?
Which is why I carry an umbrella policy of $1,000,000 for a whopping $9/month (State Farm). That's over an above anything my other insurance policies don't cover.
So yes your family member should have had more insurance.
Not touching the rest of your comments
It is hard to argue with facts, I agree....
Fundamentaly, the point of medicale insurance is to cover uncommon and unexpected catastropic losses, by spreading those costs across a pool. It's the big and unexpected expenses that insurance is for (why would you need insurance for predictable day-to-day expenses? charity is a different topic). And yet medicare fails its fundamental purpose.
Funny, try pricing out the cost of private insurance for someone who is 80 years old. Medicare will look like a bargain in terms of cost to the individual.
As for 'output only mode' you seem to do it well yourself. My point was that when you have private insurance, which is what the vast majority of our system is, then it's all about arguing over who pays. When you have just a single government system, there's no argument over who pays, it just gets paid.
You still haven't explained the 'reasons' why Medicare isn't covering the claims you're talking about, I suspect it's because there is other insurance involved, which is not a criticism of Medicare, but of the private insurance system we currently have.
Medicare is an amazingly crappy system, we're paying about 40% of federal revenue for it (40%!! really!). Social security is in trouble...at a cost of 35% of federal revenue
Sources please - 70% of current federal revenue is just these 2 programs? I seriously doubt that. Future expenses is more likely but not current.
Medicare is a good system. It is significantly inefficient, but it succeeds at what it is supposed to do which is provide health care to seniors who wouldn't otherwise be able to get it at anything other than massive premiums.
Medicare itself is also not the problem. It is health care costs that are the problem. Solve that and Medicare's problems go away pretty fast.
So time to put up or shut up...how would you provide insurance/retirement to the elderly if not Medicare/Social Security?
You might want to reread my post. I specifically exempt the cell companies because we *agree* to such tracking by purchasing their product. If I don't have a cell phone, AT&T and Verizon aren't tracking me. Ditto for Facebook.
This article and my objection is about wholesale tracking of *everybody* they encounter, not just people who have opted into the 'business' of the company in question.
As far as the turning over to the police, yes that's *really* bad and I've said as much to my congressman and senators. It's also a prime example of what will happen if this goes into place. They no longer even have to ask someone else for the data, they have it in house.
It is unclear to me why people consider it ok for stuff to be stored indefinitely in a live policeman's brain but not on his HDD.
It's especially ironic since, when the situations are reversed, the same people cry foul. Example: people argue it's ok to photograph anything you can also see with the naked eye and remember with your brain; have a policeman interfere with this and everybody's up in arms about it.
There's a very large difference in your example. The Police are doing their jobs, using tax payer money; we have a quite reasonable expectation that they are behaving and acting appropriately. Whereas individuals are simply individuals in public. You have no reasonable expectation on other people nor do they have any of you, least off all do the police have any expectation of you.
More over it's the police who cry foul at being recorded, just like I'm crying foul over this 24/7 tracking.
You've changed the situation. Your examples are people actively *involved* in the lives of those being tracked and who have a legal right to track said people; company-employee and parent-child
The article concept and my example is if a company just started tracking everybody everywhere out on the roads.
My point is that having the police tail you 24/7 recording where you go would require a warrant. They just can't decide to follow someone 24/7 because they want to. Now with technology, they can literally do this simply having their cars record and store and correlate and search who they see in their travels.
What an officer sees during normal daily activity is clearly not a 4th amendment issue. But now add up everything that every officer sees, store that information and pretty soon you have the same set of data as if they literally had been tailing everyone 24/7.
Funny, you can run for office and take them on. If they are so beholden and corrupt you should find it easy to win support of the people, no?
The Dems at least *try* to put restrictions on corporations...the GOP flatly admits they want to anything and everything to reduce any restrictions on corporations. I'll take the Dems thank you very much.
Really? And just how much did the last vote you cast do to change anything of importance?
A massive landslide in '08 followed by a massive counter-reaction in '10. How is that not having votes 'count' and 'affect' the government?
True both are mostly of the same corrupt cloth, but you *do* have a say in things, just like everybody else. And it's a far cry more say than you get as a customer of a company or even as a shareholder, as some shareholders get more 'say' than you do.
But if citizens' votes really mattered, shit legislation like this would never even be proposed, much less implemented.
Hardly. The Constitution and our legal system do nothing to prevent bad legislation. They expressly give us the ability to remedy it though and that is heads and tails more powerful.
What they want is for you to lay down and just whine about it so they can continue to bribe, I mean lobby, our elected officials. Stand up and tell your reps you won't vote for them if they continue...and then follow through and vote for someone else with better ideas. But don't just whine that 'its all corrupt we cant do anything'.
Tho actually I wonder, does Acxiom nowadays purchase customer location data from the telcos, so they can also track cellphone-carrying customers who pay with cash?
This is also a perfect example of my idea 'accrual of data' becoming 4th amendment issues. The Telcos do collect location info, I've said as much, but we also get a significant benefit of the mobile connectivity. Do the Telco's really need to keep that data beyond a month or two? Does it need to be *everybody* or just a random anonymized sample for system reliability?
Another great example is the current Copyright legislation being debated. The Government wants to require ISPs to maintain detailed logs of your online surfing. This information would normally be protected by the 4th amendment; i.e. they'd need a warrant to tap your connection. Now the government just subpoena's that info from the ISP. It's not 4th amendment because it's ISP data not yours.. Nice end run around the 4th amendment.
If the Gov't collected the data or required the data be collected on you they should forever be banned from using it without due process. How is that different than say an organized mob figure simply asking an associate to steal something and then just taking it from the associate? The mob figure didn't steal the item.
Are you saying the tax cuts aren't causing massive deficits/debt? We would literally be debt *free* NOW if we hadn't passed the Bush tax cuts. Seriously, that $14 trillion debt would be gone given projections. Would it be exactly that way, of course not, but we'd be in a hell of a lot better shape financially without them. Please try and say that isn't true.
Those wars we didn't exit
Funny who argued that leaving was 'giving up', oh yes, the GOP.
the debt that went up more in the past 2 years than all of Bush's presidency
And why did that debt go up? Because of a massive economic recession caused in large part by a 'less regulation' mindset. Who do we usually associate with less regulation and who with more regulation? Oh yes, the GOP and Bush, the Dems are always putting restrictions on 'business'.
Who fought tooth and nail to prevent new restrictions from being added? The GOP. Sensing a pattern here yet?
the should-be-illegal wiretapping that didn't stop
It's an interesting philosophical debate as to which is worse. Starting said wire tapping, or continuing it. Nobody comes out looking good. Obama is quite wrong to continue it, but Bush did start it.
The Iraq war. There was *zero* reason to go into Iraq. None. Yet we did have spent well over a Trillion dollars. Again, refute that if you can.
As far as universal service, I have a family member in bad financial shape because Medicare simply won't cover her injuries - because they're the result of a car crash
I suspect because your family member has or should have had 'auto insurance' to cover such industries. Medicare is universal in that it covers everybody, not that it covers every condition. It's fair to discuss what should or shouldn't be covered, but not that people should have medical coverage without worry of your job. Or are you saying having insurance companies simply cut you off because they want to is good?
It's also *really* hard to find specialists that will even talk to you if you're on Medicare, even with supplamental insurance.
This is the problem with 'hybrid' systems of public and private. Given that your 'health' is not something you can do without, Health Care providers have you over a barrel. They can charge whatever they want. And with private sector insurance that can cherry pick who they accept, that means no they aren't going to accept less.
When the public sector is the *only* game in town, they providers have no choice and costs come down.
Medicare needs reform, I do not dispute this. I strongly dispute that it doesn't 'work'. It works pretty damned well but certainly can be streamlined and improved. Likewise with Social Security.
Means testing is something even this 'liberal' endorses. I see no reason to provide Medicare to Bill Gates, he simply doesn't need it. I don't plan to need either program, but I want them there *if* I do need them; which is why it's called the 'safety net'. Make these things more like life insurance...you pay the premiums/taxes and get the benefits *if* you need them. Everybody's covered but not everybody needs to receive the benefits. Is that really so bad?
I'm just explaining that this dislike is from an inherent aspect of the world, not some new violation of the Constitution.
I believe that's what I was saying. My point is that small accruals that are collectively organized start to become something that the Constitution would prevent; such as in depth tracking of every individual in the country. They need a reason before they are allowed to do this.
which isn't unconstitutional unless you start arguing about privacy rights (which is only a penumbral right anyway).
You've lost the argument there unfortunately. The Constitution is expressly about privacy rights - the government does not have the right to anything except what is expressly granted. That means my privacy is more important than random 'passive' tracking because they can.
Having this much detailed data available just begs it to be used...more problems can occur than could ever be justified with the small increase in benefit you might get from this.
It's not illegal to boycott a corporation. It's expressly illegal not to pay taxes.
A corporation does not give you, the customer, the ability to change it's policies. The government does give you that express ability. So if you don't like something, change it.
Funny, last I checked you just don't frequent those businesses and don't spend money at them. Like I no longer stop at any BP gas stations.
If the government wanted to follow me around... they could
Yes they could. They also should have to get a warrant to do active tracking. Freedoms should be *hard* to impinge. My issue is not the observational nature, it's the persistence of that data after the observation.
The issue is not simply that tracking you is bad, the issue is that later the government will use that data later for wholly unrelated reasons. What government wouldn't want to have a correlated list of where someone has been every day of every month of every year of their life. If you can't see the massive damage that does to our civil liberties, well I'm not sure you'd see the bus coming at you on the street either.
Until you can prove I have something to hide, you don't get to track me. That's what courts and warrants are expressly for.
This is what happens when liberals are at the helm.
And lets not forget actually care for their citizens humanely by providing universal health care. A significant improvement over everybody else, though VT has now surpassed them with *actual* universal health care as opposed to mandated insurance coverage.
Bad actors exist on *both* sides. Need we bring up the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts that are bankrupting us? Neither helped that many people, but they are actively hurting the majority of people.
Social Security and Medicare, also 'liberal' inventions that are quite popular and actually provide universal service...something no corporation would even attempt.
What have the GOP ever done for you besides artificially lower your taxes and then leave you with massive deficits caused by those low taxes?
I believe there two distinct differences here. Acxiom is not tracking your 'movements'. Just your actions at various transaction points. That's significant. If you just drive around and don't buy, sell or otherwise interact, Acxiom doesn't have any knowledge of that. This proposal is simply pure survelience (can't spell this to save my life!) not action based tracking of 'what' you do.
Secondly, how many people actually *know* about this? I'm guessing quite bit less than 1/100th of one percent of the population. Hence, no uproar.
So, if a corporation would do that, it's OK, but if a govt. does it, it's not?
Actually yes that's correct. What do you think would happen to that corporation if it came out they were tracking everybody like this? They'd be run out of business quite fast. (mobile phones are a different story as people receive significant benefit from said 'tracking'; i.e. the mobile connectivity).
The 'government' can't be 'boycotted' in the manner of a corporation so yes they aren't supposed to be allowed to do such things. Corporations also don't enforce the laws (theoretically anyway) so they don't have the leverage the government does over your freedoms either.
Slashdot Mirror
10 Million people getting unemployment checks.
That. They. Paid. For. You and your employer pay unemployment premiums so that if you get laid off, you have *something* coming in.
Now ask yourself what caused so many people to get laid off? It wasn't anything Obama did....
There goes most of /. (me included ;-) )
But you still buy Gas. Thank you for proving my point perfectly.
What point exactly is that? That you still have to keep doing things to live? News at 11 and all that.
I simply gave you a concrete example of how I have boycotted something refuting your point that you "can't". If most sheeple aren't going to play along not much you can do, but you can still make your own personal stand on issues. Apparently you'd just sit there and take it. How many issues have you written your congressman about this year? I'm guessing zero. I probably average 2-3 letters a month. If you aren't speaking up, you have no credibility to criticize the results.
Considering your Governor makes up lies about immigrants and refuses to recant them for months of being asked to produce evidence.
Considering your Governor signed a law to imprison multitudes of people...which was written by her aides who have close ties to the private prison system in Arizona.
Considering McCain's complete abdication of anything resembling integrity to get reelected.
I'd think you'd consider those more of an insult since its being done in your name...
Sources? Last I checked office buildings had the same sunlight hitting them as anything else ;-)
Seriously though, there will be a constant supply of heated air moving through thus keeping this tube at a relatively constant temperature compared with the solar energy hitting it. Paint it white and even less heating occurs.
Thank you for that refreshingly logical cup of 'Shut the fuck up troll' :)
Fair enough, though I'm sure quite a few animals lived on the area of open pit mining too. The upside here is that there is far less environmental disruption for this than other power sources.
It's just a hollow tube with some minor reinforcement. Hell you can use guide wires like they do for radio towers. There's very little cost compared to an occupied office building/residence like the Dubai tower.
Just Arizona itself. I consider that a win/win ;-)
My family member's medical bill have passed $300k and it isn't done yet, and that's not out of line for a severe injury
How much of that would you be covered for? If you're really lucky, the person who hit you might have $100k in insurance. How much more is your own insurance going to pick up?
Which is why I carry an umbrella policy of $1,000,000 for a whopping $9/month (State Farm). That's over an above anything my other insurance policies don't cover.
So yes your family member should have had more insurance.
Not touching the rest of your comments
It is hard to argue with facts, I agree....
Fundamentaly, the point of medicale insurance is to cover uncommon and unexpected catastropic losses, by spreading those costs across a pool. It's the big and unexpected expenses that insurance is for (why would you need insurance for predictable day-to-day expenses? charity is a different topic). And yet medicare fails its fundamental purpose.
Funny, try pricing out the cost of private insurance for someone who is 80 years old. Medicare will look like a bargain in terms of cost to the individual.
As for 'output only mode' you seem to do it well yourself. My point was that when you have private insurance, which is what the vast majority of our system is, then it's all about arguing over who pays. When you have just a single government system, there's no argument over who pays, it just gets paid.
You still haven't explained the 'reasons' why Medicare isn't covering the claims you're talking about, I suspect it's because there is other insurance involved, which is not a criticism of Medicare, but of the private insurance system we currently have.
Medicare is an amazingly crappy system, we're paying about 40% of federal revenue for it (40%!! really!). Social security is in trouble...at a cost of 35% of federal revenue
Sources please - 70% of current federal revenue is just these 2 programs? I seriously doubt that. Future expenses is more likely but not current.
Medicare is a good system. It is significantly inefficient, but it succeeds at what it is supposed to do which is provide health care to seniors who wouldn't otherwise be able to get it at anything other than massive premiums.
Medicare itself is also not the problem. It is health care costs that are the problem. Solve that and Medicare's problems go away pretty fast.
So time to put up or shut up...how would you provide insurance/retirement to the elderly if not Medicare/Social Security?
You might want to reread my post. I specifically exempt the cell companies because we *agree* to such tracking by purchasing their product. If I don't have a cell phone, AT&T and Verizon aren't tracking me. Ditto for Facebook.
This article and my objection is about wholesale tracking of *everybody* they encounter, not just people who have opted into the 'business' of the company in question.
As far as the turning over to the police, yes that's *really* bad and I've said as much to my congressman and senators. It's also a prime example of what will happen if this goes into place. They no longer even have to ask someone else for the data, they have it in house.
It is unclear to me why people consider it ok for stuff to be stored indefinitely in a live policeman's brain but not on his HDD.
It's especially ironic since, when the situations are reversed, the same people cry foul. Example: people argue it's ok to photograph anything you can also see with the naked eye and remember with your brain; have a policeman interfere with this and everybody's up in arms about it.
There's a very large difference in your example. The Police are doing their jobs, using tax payer money; we have a quite reasonable expectation that they are behaving and acting appropriately. Whereas individuals are simply individuals in public. You have no reasonable expectation on other people nor do they have any of you, least off all do the police have any expectation of you.
More over it's the police who cry foul at being recorded, just like I'm crying foul over this 24/7 tracking.
You've changed the situation. Your examples are people actively *involved* in the lives of those being tracked and who have a legal right to track said people; company-employee and parent-child
The article concept and my example is if a company just started tracking everybody everywhere out on the roads.
My point is that having the police tail you 24/7 recording where you go would require a warrant. They just can't decide to follow someone 24/7 because they want to. Now with technology, they can literally do this simply having their cars record and store and correlate and search who they see in their travels.
What an officer sees during normal daily activity is clearly not a 4th amendment issue. But now add up everything that every officer sees, store that information and pretty soon you have the same set of data as if they literally had been tailing everyone 24/7.
Funny, you can run for office and take them on. If they are so beholden and corrupt you should find it easy to win support of the people, no?
The Dems at least *try* to put restrictions on corporations...the GOP flatly admits they want to anything and everything to reduce any restrictions on corporations. I'll take the Dems thank you very much.
Really? And just how much did the last vote you cast do to change anything of importance?
A massive landslide in '08 followed by a massive counter-reaction in '10. How is that not having votes 'count' and 'affect' the government?
True both are mostly of the same corrupt cloth, but you *do* have a say in things, just like everybody else. And it's a far cry more say than you get as a customer of a company or even as a shareholder, as some shareholders get more 'say' than you do.
But if citizens' votes really mattered, shit legislation like this would never even be proposed, much less implemented.
Hardly. The Constitution and our legal system do nothing to prevent bad legislation. They expressly give us the ability to remedy it though and that is heads and tails more powerful.
What they want is for you to lay down and just whine about it so they can continue to bribe, I mean lobby, our elected officials. Stand up and tell your reps you won't vote for them if they continue...and then follow through and vote for someone else with better ideas. But don't just whine that 'its all corrupt we cant do anything'.
Tho actually I wonder, does Acxiom nowadays purchase customer location data from the telcos, so they can also track cellphone-carrying customers who pay with cash?
This is also a perfect example of my idea 'accrual of data' becoming 4th amendment issues. The Telcos do collect location info, I've said as much, but we also get a significant benefit of the mobile connectivity. Do the Telco's really need to keep that data beyond a month or two? Does it need to be *everybody* or just a random anonymized sample for system reliability?
Another great example is the current Copyright legislation being debated. The Government wants to require ISPs to maintain detailed logs of your online surfing. This information would normally be protected by the 4th amendment; i.e. they'd need a warrant to tap your connection. Now the government just subpoena's that info from the ISP. It's not 4th amendment because it's ISP data not yours.. Nice end run around the 4th amendment.
If the Gov't collected the data or required the data be collected on you they should forever be banned from using it without due process. How is that different than say an organized mob figure simply asking an associate to steal something and then just taking it from the associate? The mob figure didn't steal the item.
Keep blaming Bush
Are you saying the tax cuts aren't causing massive deficits/debt? We would literally be debt *free* NOW if we hadn't passed the Bush tax cuts. Seriously, that $14 trillion debt would be gone given projections. Would it be exactly that way, of course not, but we'd be in a hell of a lot better shape financially without them. Please try and say that isn't true.
Those wars we didn't exit
Funny who argued that leaving was 'giving up', oh yes, the GOP.
the debt that went up more in the past 2 years than all of Bush's presidency
And why did that debt go up? Because of a massive economic recession caused in large part by a 'less regulation' mindset. Who do we usually associate with less regulation and who with more regulation? Oh yes, the GOP and Bush, the Dems are always putting restrictions on 'business'. Who fought tooth and nail to prevent new restrictions from being added? The GOP. Sensing a pattern here yet?
the should-be-illegal wiretapping that didn't stop
It's an interesting philosophical debate as to which is worse. Starting said wire tapping, or continuing it. Nobody comes out looking good. Obama is quite wrong to continue it, but Bush did start it.
The Iraq war. There was *zero* reason to go into Iraq. None. Yet we did have spent well over a Trillion dollars. Again, refute that if you can.
As far as universal service, I have a family member in bad financial shape because Medicare simply won't cover her injuries - because they're the result of a car crash
I suspect because your family member has or should have had 'auto insurance' to cover such industries. Medicare is universal in that it covers everybody, not that it covers every condition. It's fair to discuss what should or shouldn't be covered, but not that people should have medical coverage without worry of your job. Or are you saying having insurance companies simply cut you off because they want to is good?
It's also *really* hard to find specialists that will even talk to you if you're on Medicare, even with supplamental insurance.
This is the problem with 'hybrid' systems of public and private. Given that your 'health' is not something you can do without, Health Care providers have you over a barrel. They can charge whatever they want. And with private sector insurance that can cherry pick who they accept, that means no they aren't going to accept less.
When the public sector is the *only* game in town, they providers have no choice and costs come down.
Medicare needs reform, I do not dispute this. I strongly dispute that it doesn't 'work'. It works pretty damned well but certainly can be streamlined and improved. Likewise with Social Security.
Means testing is something even this 'liberal' endorses. I see no reason to provide Medicare to Bill Gates, he simply doesn't need it. I don't plan to need either program, but I want them there *if* I do need them; which is why it's called the 'safety net'. Make these things more like life insurance...you pay the premiums/taxes and get the benefits *if* you need them. Everybody's covered but not everybody needs to receive the benefits. Is that really so bad?
I'm just explaining that this dislike is from an inherent aspect of the world, not some new violation of the Constitution.
I believe that's what I was saying. My point is that small accruals that are collectively organized start to become something that the Constitution would prevent; such as in depth tracking of every individual in the country. They need a reason before they are allowed to do this.
which isn't unconstitutional unless you start arguing about privacy rights (which is only a penumbral right anyway).
You've lost the argument there unfortunately. The Constitution is expressly about privacy rights - the government does not have the right to anything except what is expressly granted. That means my privacy is more important than random 'passive' tracking because they can.
Having this much detailed data available just begs it to be used...more problems can occur than could ever be justified with the small increase in benefit you might get from this.
And I'm a flaming liberal saying this...
It's not illegal to boycott a corporation. It's expressly illegal not to pay taxes.
A corporation does not give you, the customer, the ability to change it's policies. The government does give you that express ability. So if you don't like something, change it.
Corporations can't really be "boycotted" either.
Funny, last I checked you just don't frequent those businesses and don't spend money at them. Like I no longer stop at any BP gas stations.
If the government wanted to follow me around... they could
Yes they could. They also should have to get a warrant to do active tracking. Freedoms should be *hard* to impinge. My issue is not the observational nature, it's the persistence of that data after the observation.
The issue is not simply that tracking you is bad, the issue is that later the government will use that data later for wholly unrelated reasons. What government wouldn't want to have a correlated list of where someone has been every day of every month of every year of their life. If you can't see the massive damage that does to our civil liberties, well I'm not sure you'd see the bus coming at you on the street either.
Until you can prove I have something to hide, you don't get to track me. That's what courts and warrants are expressly for.
This is what happens when liberals are at the helm.
And lets not forget actually care for their citizens humanely by providing universal health care. A significant improvement over everybody else, though VT has now surpassed them with *actual* universal health care as opposed to mandated insurance coverage.
Bad actors exist on *both* sides. Need we bring up the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts that are bankrupting us? Neither helped that many people, but they are actively hurting the majority of people.
Social Security and Medicare, also 'liberal' inventions that are quite popular and actually provide universal service...something no corporation would even attempt.
What have the GOP ever done for you besides artificially lower your taxes and then leave you with massive deficits caused by those low taxes?
I believe there two distinct differences here. Acxiom is not tracking your 'movements'. Just your actions at various transaction points. That's significant. If you just drive around and don't buy, sell or otherwise interact, Acxiom doesn't have any knowledge of that. This proposal is simply pure survelience (can't spell this to save my life!) not action based tracking of 'what' you do.
Secondly, how many people actually *know* about this? I'm guessing quite bit less than 1/100th of one percent of the population. Hence, no uproar.
Only to be replaced by bastards. It's a never ending cycle.
Then run for office yourself you bastard!
;-)
oh wait...
So, if a corporation would do that, it's OK, but if a govt. does it, it's not?
Actually yes that's correct. What do you think would happen to that corporation if it came out they were tracking everybody like this? They'd be run out of business quite fast. (mobile phones are a different story as people receive significant benefit from said 'tracking'; i.e. the mobile connectivity).
The 'government' can't be 'boycotted' in the manner of a corporation so yes they aren't supposed to be allowed to do such things. Corporations also don't enforce the laws (theoretically anyway) so they don't have the leverage the government does over your freedoms either.