Because if it's a domestic call, a record of it is retained by the NSA, which is exactly what the topic at hand is about.
I took the liberty of repairing your mistake so that the sentence is relevant and on-topic like the post you responded to was.
In fact, this is quite relevant even though it was a joke. The NSA, or anybody within the NSA with the appropriate clearance acting out of the bounds of their duty, now has the ability to identify every one of the people who participated in this survey if it chooses to.
The majority of voters in largely Democratic areas in Ohio didn't even use electronic voting machines so this is kind of a moot point.
Are you implying that it is not important that republican votes be accurately accounted for? Maybe that it was a forgone conclusion that Bush would receive all or significantly close to all republican votes, so assurance of accuracy is not of significant concern?
A frightening excusatory remark indeed... I may have semi-predictable voting patterns that lead me to vote predominantly democratic, but if a voting machine picks up my vote as being for Hillary Clinton in 2008, I guarantee you I'd wish to be aware of the error regardless of what I was expected to do.
...yet another liberal urban legend...
Actually, this is FUD, not the original post. The original poster's concerns are shored up to a great extent by the very article under which the concerns were posted. What I just quoted from you is just a random claim you tossed out about some apparently nebulous web of deceit, yet I see nothing you've posted along with it that actually suggests any such thing exists.
Just because you SAY there are monsters under the bed doesn't make it so, and I don't see any beady eyes or claws peering out at me.
Please stop spreading this FUD.
An apt idea that you might consider applying to yourself in the future.
Just like the world's smartest man in Dilbert. Who would you be to look down on the world's smartest man for choosing to be a sanitation worker of some sort? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume he knows something you don't about the job rather than that he's made a poor choice?
since when do you have any expectation of privacy in public places
You cannot forfeit a right relative to time and space. The only time a right is forfeit is when it is unfairly and unncessarily restricting the rights of others. The discussion then becomes "are my rights being violated" from the persepctive of whether or not the cameras violate your rights, not whether or not you actually have those rights.
It's always the idiots like I mentioned above complaining. Where's the intelligent arguments against CCTV in public places? Are there any?
First of all, semi-ignoring the irony your egregious assault on the poster via insult rather than any coherent argument of your own against his comments, the argument is not required from the people who are complaining AGAINST the CCTV. The people who wish to make the change must prove the necessity.
In other words, the "intelligent argument" against the CCTVs is very simple (presuming it's still valid, I'm not a Briton): no justification has been provided showing the necessity. Under the system you imply, the government would be free to do anything it wants, just as long as no credible argument can be made against it, which would mean they could do anything because you cannot construct a logical argument AGAINST something that hasn't ever happened. No matter what argument you posited in that situation, the simplest and most completely accurate logical refutation would be that you're being assumptive (because no data can exist to support the rejection of the change you're arguing against until the change has actually occurred).
There is nothing to argue against as you still have not provided any logical backing for your original post and I have not used an ad hominem. I have objected to your boorish and immature manner of posting, which might qualify as a strawman if we were currently engaged in debate, and I have pointed out - quite accurately - that the initial post contained no meaningful content in general, but specifically not in relation to the post to which you replied.
At this point, I'm not refuting you because there is nothing to refute, not because I'm incapable of doing so, therefore there is no contest, therefore there can be no logical fallacies in any meaningful sense.
I think you don't understand the basic concepts of natural rights and freedoms. When one takes into account the immature and boorish manner in which you've chosen to express yourself, this is not surprising.
Slashdot Mirror
I took the liberty of repairing your mistake so that the sentence is relevant and on-topic like the post you responded to was.
In fact, this is quite relevant even though it was a joke. The NSA, or anybody within the NSA with the appropriate clearance acting out of the bounds of their duty, now has the ability to identify every one of the people who participated in this survey if it chooses to.
Are you implying that it is not important that republican votes be accurately accounted for? Maybe that it was a forgone conclusion that Bush would receive all or significantly close to all republican votes, so assurance of accuracy is not of significant concern?
A frightening excusatory remark indeed... I may have semi-predictable voting patterns that lead me to vote predominantly democratic, but if a voting machine picks up my vote as being for Hillary Clinton in 2008, I guarantee you I'd wish to be aware of the error regardless of what I was expected to do.
Actually, this is FUD, not the original post. The original poster's concerns are shored up to a great extent by the very article under which the concerns were posted. What I just quoted from you is just a random claim you tossed out about some apparently nebulous web of deceit, yet I see nothing you've posted along with it that actually suggests any such thing exists.
Just because you SAY there are monsters under the bed doesn't make it so, and I don't see any beady eyes or claws peering out at me.
Please stop spreading this FUD.
An apt idea that you might consider applying to yourself in the future.
Just like the world's smartest man in Dilbert. Who would you be to look down on the world's smartest man for choosing to be a sanitation worker of some sort? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume he knows something you don't about the job rather than that he's made a poor choice?
since when do you have any expectation of privacy in public places
You cannot forfeit a right relative to time and space. The only time a right is forfeit is when it is unfairly and unncessarily restricting the rights of others. The discussion then becomes "are my rights being violated" from the persepctive of whether or not the cameras violate your rights, not whether or not you actually have those rights.
It's always the idiots like I mentioned above complaining. Where's the intelligent arguments against CCTV in public places? Are there any?
First of all, semi-ignoring the irony your egregious assault on the poster via insult rather than any coherent argument of your own against his comments, the argument is not required from the people who are complaining AGAINST the CCTV. The people who wish to make the change must prove the necessity.
In other words, the "intelligent argument" against the CCTVs is very simple (presuming it's still valid, I'm not a Briton): no justification has been provided showing the necessity. Under the system you imply, the government would be free to do anything it wants, just as long as no credible argument can be made against it, which would mean they could do anything because you cannot construct a logical argument AGAINST something that hasn't ever happened. No matter what argument you posited in that situation, the simplest and most completely accurate logical refutation would be that you're being assumptive (because no data can exist to support the rejection of the change you're arguing against until the change has actually occurred).
There is nothing to argue against as you still have not provided any logical backing for your original post and I have not used an ad hominem. I have objected to your boorish and immature manner of posting, which might qualify as a strawman if we were currently engaged in debate, and I have pointed out - quite accurately - that the initial post contained no meaningful content in general, but specifically not in relation to the post to which you replied.
At this point, I'm not refuting you because there is nothing to refute, not because I'm incapable of doing so, therefore there is no contest, therefore there can be no logical fallacies in any meaningful sense.
I think you don't understand the basic concepts of natural rights and freedoms. When one takes into account the immature and boorish manner in which you've chosen to express yourself, this is not surprising.
I take it you've never heard of ECHELON?