[Scape]

[Thanos]

I really don't disagree with any of this. I'm just kind of puzzled as to why people are so upset at the government poking around when the information they have on us pales in comparison to what the banks and credit card companies already do. Why exactly is one worse than the other? If anything, if the government wants more information on us all they should do is confiscate the information they need from Mastercard or Visa. It'd save them piles of money and tons of time investigating on their own and they'd end up with more accurate information as well. Track the money trail at PayPal or Craigslist and they'd probably uncover more pedophiles than they ever would with the traditional methods they keep using.

I dig it. I'm hip to not wanting the government prying into my doings; if they do a search of my Google activities they're going to find a disturbing number of "big tits" searches that have been going on for like forever. I'm still a lot more worried though of ending up on the wrong side of the maniacs at Anonymous or 4-chan than I am the government. The gummint's just being snoopy. Those other psychos actively go out of their way to fuck people up.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos wrote:

I really don't disagree with any of this. I'm just kind of puzzled as to why people are so upset at the government poking around when the information they have on us pales in comparison to what the banks and credit card companies already do. Why exactly is one worse than the other? If anything, if the government wants more information on us all they should do is confiscate the information they need from Mastercard or Visa. It'd save them piles of money and tons of time investigating on their own and they'd end up with more accurate information as well. Track the money trail at PayPal or Craigslist and they'd probably uncover more pedophiles than they ever would with the traditional methods they keep using.

Because right now, I control my information. I decide whether to give up info and privacy by using credit or loyalty cards, or post on Facebook.

Right now it is also illegal for the government to amalgamate the info it does have on me (remember the "Super Database??"). This means that I can be a suspect in a criminal investigation for no other reason that the whim of a police officer. If the Justice system is to be involved, I at least want a Judge to be making these decisions.

Just look at what Target is able to do, using loyalty cards. I do not want the government having this ability. It does not need this ability.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill ... ion-score/

[EyeBrock]

Big tit searches are awesome.

[Unsound]

EyeBrock wrote:

Big tit searches are awesome.

Until the government threatens to tell your wife if you don't promise to vote for them.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb wrote:

Because right now, I control my information. I decide whether to give up info and privacy by using credit or loyalty cards, or post on Facebook.

Right now it is also illegal for the government to amalgamate the info it does have on me (remember the "Super Database??"). This means that I can be a suspect in a criminal investigation for no other reason that the whim of a police officer. If the Justice system is to be involved, I at least want a Judge to be making these decisions.

Just look at what Target is able to do, using loyalty cards. I do not want the government having this ability. It does not need this ability.

You can be a suspect in a criminal investigation on a whim now, so how I'm not sure how this would be any different.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

Because right now, I control my information. I decide whether to give up info and privacy by using credit or loyalty cards, or post on Facebook.

Right now it is also illegal for the government to amalgamate the info it does have on me (remember the "Super Database??"). This means that I can be a suspect in a criminal investigation for no other reason that the whim of a police officer. If the Justice system is to be involved, I at least want a Judge to be making these decisions.

Just look at what Target is able to do, using loyalty cards. I do not want the government having this ability. It does not need this ability.

You can be a suspect in a criminal investigation on a whim now, so how I'm not sure how this would be any different.

Death by 1000 cuts. We are the citizens. We decide how our elected officials will govern our country for us. We need to say "this far, and no further". I fI am the subject of an investigation, so be it. But a Judge should have to issue warrants for my information, not the Cop who's sister I just started dating.

If we let this 'little thing' slide, next it will be a ressurection of the 'super database', and government becomes the decision maker of how Canada will be run. And I don't like that option.

I'm all for catching kiddie diddlers, but target them, not me.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb wrote:

Death by 1000 cuts. We are the citizens. We decide how our elected officials will govern our country for us. We need to say "this far, and no further". I fI am the subject of an investigation, so be it. But a Judge should have to issue warrants for my information, not the Cop who's sister I just started dating.

If we let this 'little thing' slide, next it will be a ressurection of the 'super database', and government becomes the decision maker of how Canada will be run. And I don't like that option.

I'm all for catching kiddie diddlers, but target them, not me.

Well, that's all fine and dandy but it's not reality.

Rarely does the government run the Country how we want them too. When our Prime Minister gets into office with ~40% of the vote, the system isn't exactly the best.

We also have to keep in mind that we're using a service offered by a private company and even then, their own privacy policies aren't the best.

Everything we do is tracked electronically.

If Rogers knows you search for "big tits" all the time, do you care if a police officer knows too?

Do you care that the banking officer at Scotia Bank can see you shopped at "Sluts R' Us" twice this past month when you're standing at the counter?

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

Death by 1000 cuts. We are the citizens. We decide how our elected officials will govern our country for us. We need to say "this far, and no further". I fI am the subject of an investigation, so be it. But a Judge should have to issue warrants for my information, not the Cop who's sister I just started dating.

If we let this 'little thing' slide, next it will be a ressurection of the 'super database', and government becomes the decision maker of how Canada will be run. And I don't like that option.

I'm all for catching kiddie diddlers, but target them, not me.

Well, that's all fine and dandy but it's not reality.

Rarely does the government run the Country how we want them too. When our Prime Minister gets into office with ~40% of the vote, the system isn't exactly the best.

We also have to keep in mind that we're using a service offered by a private company and even then, their own privacy policies aren't the best.

Everything we do is tracked electronically.

No, it's not. Nor is it recorded for future reference, mostly because ISPs couldn't give a crap what we do, nor do they have the money to store and back it up if they did store it.

OnTheIce wrote:

If Rogers knows you search for "big tits" all the time, do you care if a police officer knows too?

Yes, I care. Rogers only knows that I requested the data, and they only keep that information for milliseconds then discard it.

Why does a cop need to know what I search for? Why will he need to know in 6 months, and who will pay to keep that information stored for that long for every person in Canada? (hint: you and I will pay for the honour of being recorded for posterity)

OnTheIce wrote:

Do you care that the banking officer at Scotia Bank can see you shopped at "Sluts R' Us" twice this past month when you're standing at the counter?

Yes, I care. But the banking officer is under strict rules not to discuss my finances with anyone. Politicians? Not so much.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb wrote:

No, it's not. Nor is it recorded for future reference, mostly because ISPs couldn't give a crap what we do, nor do they have the money to store and back it up if they did store it.

Wanna bet?

Ask those people who get letters from their ISP for downloading movies via Torrent sites. I've gotten a couple of them over the years.

ISP's care because they are being pressured by various groups to crack down on illegal activity. They've also been caught throttling certain power users to prevent them from downloading certain file types.

DrCaleb wrote:

Yes, I care. But the banking officer is under strict rules not to discuss my finances with anyone. Politicians? Not so much.

Oh yea, so you trust some kid, fresh out of University to check on your finances? If you don't think these people go home at the end of the day and have a laugh at our expense based on funny charges, you're kidding yourself.

[Scape]

Thanos wrote:

I really don't disagree with any of this. I'm just kind of puzzled as to why people are so upset at the government poking around when the information they have on us pales in comparison to what the banks and credit card companies already do. Why exactly is one worse than the other? If anything, if the government wants more information on us all they should do is confiscate the information they need from Mastercard or Visa. It'd save them piles of money and tons of time investigating on their own and they'd end up with more accurate information as well. Track the money trail at PayPal or Craigslist and they'd probably uncover more pedophiles than they ever would with the traditional methods they keep using.

I dig it. I'm hip to not wanting the government prying into my doings; if they do a search of my Google activities they're going to find a disturbing number of "big tits" searches that have been going on for like forever. I'm still a lot more worried though of ending up on the wrong side of the maniacs at Anonymous or 4-chan than I am the government. The gummint's just being snoopy. Those other psychos actively go out of their way to fuck people up.

I'm ok with big brother asking but not telling me I have to comply. Why not make an internet registry that is based upon voluntary registration? It would then be assigned upon active consent and the benefits would be a two way street. The feds get the intel they are looking for and we get access to social programs and benefits we are requesting that are tailored to our specs.

If you don't register, fine. But don't expect tax credits either. Freedom isn't free.

Fair compromise?

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

No, it's not. Nor is it recorded for future reference, mostly because ISPs couldn't give a crap what we do, nor do they have the money to store and back it up if they did store it.

Wanna bet?

Ask those people who get letters from their ISP for downloading movies via Torrent sites. I've gotten a couple of them over the years.

ISP's care because they are being pressured by various groups to crack down on illegal activity. They've also been caught throttling certain power users to prevent them from downloading certain file types.

Yes, I'll take that bet.

They record that you downloaded a torrent, and how much data you used. Not what was in the torrent, or the file contents. Generic statistics, that is all. That will be the difference here. Data throttling is easy, because you don't have to know what is in the data, you only have to look at the packet headers to determine the type. There are specialty machines just for that purpose. (I used to do network analysis for a living )

OnTheIce wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

Yes, I care. But the banking officer is under strict rules not to discuss my finances with anyone. Politicians? Not so much.

Oh yea, so you trust some kid, fresh out of University to check on your finances? If you don't think these people go home at the end of the day and have a laugh at our expense based on funny charges, you're kidding yourself.

What they laugh at, I don't care. They didn't make a recording of it, and they aren't using that recording for unknown purposes. But I did notice you dodged the question as to 'why' the police need this information to be stored and why they need access to it whithout judicial oversight.

Why do they need to know, in 6 months, that I visited 'Sluts R Us'?

Like I said earlier about 'Target'; it's called "data mining". Fishing for illegal activites by combing trends in seemingly unrelated data. Some people call others 'paranoid' or 'foilers' for suggesting that we need to defend our own privacy, but sitting right there in fromt of you is the start of Orwell's "Big Brother".

[bootlegga]

Scape wrote:

[BartSimpson]

Unsound wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Big tit searches are awesome.

Until the government threatens to tell your wife if you don't promise to vote for them.

F*cking Obama got to you, too, eh?

[EyeBrock]

DrCaleb wrote:

Thanos wrote:

I really don't disagree with any of this. I'm just kind of puzzled as to why people are so upset at the government poking around when the information they have on us pales in comparison to what the banks and credit card companies already do. Why exactly is one worse than the other? If anything, if the government wants more information on us all they should do is confiscate the information they need from Mastercard or Visa. It'd save them piles of money and tons of time investigating on their own and they'd end up with more accurate information as well. Track the money trail at PayPal or Craigslist and they'd probably uncover more pedophiles than they ever would with the traditional methods they keep using.

Because right now, I control my information. I decide whether to give up info and privacy by using credit or loyalty cards, or post on Facebook.

Right now it is also illegal for the government to amalgamate the info it does have on me (remember the "Super Database??"). This means that I can be a suspect in a criminal investigation for no other reason that the whim of a police officer. If the Justice system is to be involved, I at least want a Judge to be making these decisions.

Just look at what Target is able to do, using loyalty cards. I do not want the government having this ability. It does not need this ability.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill ... ion-score/

News flash....
Employers, credit agencies, police etc look at Facebook first.