zlacker

>>benwer+(OP)
The government couldn't do it this easily if it wasn't for sale.

It being for sale means anyone can be doing it which might be a framing that would be more alarming to the law-and-order types.

But really you need a two prong solution:

1) restrict this from being collected and compiled in the first place, eliminate the ability to default to this tracking unless someone opts out

2) restrict the government's ability to use or acquire through non-market-based means. The claim here is that there's already restrictions on this vs directly surveiling, but I haven't seen directly which specific restrictions those are for buying off-the-shelf info and the article doesn't specify.

There are very really no companies that I trust to keep my data safe for 10, 20, 50 years. Leadership changes, ownership changes, etc. We have to cut it off at the source.

>>majorm+08
> It being for sale means anyone can be doing it which might be a framing that would be more alarming to the law-and-order types.

How about "more alarming to the lawmakers?"

Someone could show that movement info, for example, is available for sale on a legislator. Or a legislator's spouse or child.

Now do you see the problem, oh you who write the laws?

>>Animal+Za
I suspect all those who write the laws already have a Damoclean Sword threatening to drop on them at any time convenient. So I wouldn't count on much help from them whether the laws apply to them or not. It's a virtual certainty that noone who seeks power is free of exploitable skeletons. They are the kind of people who seek power. So the law enforcement and security infrastructure can leak that whenever they choose.

I guess what I'm saying is, your suggestion would be a good idea, but the security apparatus figured it out before you did a long time ago. See ABSCAM for instance.

>>bilbo0+yc
I'm reminded of how Obama was vocally opposed to domestic surveillance and campaigned on ending all the new spying on the American people, but once he was in office he changed his tune very quickly and ended up expanding the NSA's ability to spy on the people instead.

I figure either he was shown some very strong and classified evidence that the data the NSA had been collecting was critical to protecting the people even while it violated their constitutional rights and freedoms or else he was shown how much dirt they have on him and his family and he was blackmailed into publicly declaring his love for NSA spying and handing them more tools to collect data while making only a few token changes.

>>autoex+bo
I figure either he was shown some very strong and classified evidence that the data the NSA had been collecting was critical... or else he was shown how much dirt they have on him

Just, Devil's Advocate, but, yeah, why can't it be both?