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
What i don't understand is why if it's illegal and forbidden for the government to directly indiscriminately collect information and data on citizens, they can buy the same information from data brokers without an issue? Surely this violates the intent of the law.

>>mc32+0e
The intent of the law was to limit government power specifically. Not unlike the law requiring most of the information on firearm sales at the federal level be kept in paper format so that it can't easily be mass-indexed and mass-crawled.

>>shadow+cf
Maybe the world needs an NRA type agency for privacy - strident and extremist in scope so that the government invariably wilts before it.

>>Sai_+wv
The NRA is backed by an ardent following of funders who sincerely believe curtailment of their ownership of firearms is an immediate and direct existential threat.

That's what privacy is missing. But get the right ad agencies on it to put together some good scare campaigns and maybe.