Chris wrote:

>>> It is always a good starting point to turn off all location data
>>> generating sensors and applications when not really needed if privacy is
>>> of any importance.
>>>
>>
>> What have you done that has made you so paranoid?
>
> That's got nothing to do with it. People are entitled to reasonably privacy
> and non-surveillance.

I agree with Chris where privacy is a basic right that people like Joerg
Lorenz must provide a reason that you should not have any right to privacy,
instead of people like Joerg demanding to know why you want your basic
rights.

In the paraphrased words of Edward Snowden, always ask anyone and everyone
asking you what have you got to hide for their email password - and watch
what happens then.

> However, nothing in the article suggests this data is anything more than
> anonymous or aggregated data that doesn't impinge on people's right to
> privacy.

I'm surprised you missed the main two point of that article, Chris.

Do you want me to summarize it in one sentence for you, using those two key
rational points of view based on the facts as presented in that article?
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>> It is always a good starting point to turn off all location data
>>>> generating sensors and applications when not really needed if privacy is
>>>> of any importance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What have you done that has made you so paranoid?
>>
>> That's got nothing to do with it. People are entitled to reasonably privacy
>> and non-surveillance.
>
> I agree with Chris where privacy is a basic right that people like Joerg
> Lorenz must provide a reason that you should not have any right to privacy,
> instead of people like Joerg demanding to know why you want your basic
> rights.
>
> In the paraphrased words of Edward Snowden, always ask anyone and everyone
> asking you what have you got to hide for their email password - and watch
> what happens then.
>
>> However, nothing in the article suggests this data is anything more than
>> anonymous or aggregated data that doesn't impinge on people's right to
>> privacy.
>
> I'm surprised you missed the main two point of that article, Chris.

Doubtful. Do they directly address my point above?

> Do you want me to summarize it in one sentence for you, using those two key
> rational points of view based on the facts as presented in that article?

LOL. This'll be interesting. It took you four very verbose posts to
summarise it earlier. One sentence, you say? Go on.

Chris wrote:

>> I'm surprised you missed the main two point of that article, Chris.
>
> Doubtful. Do they directly address my point above?

The main points are that they can and do track you, personally.

>> Do you want me to summarize it in one sentence for you, using those two key
>> rational points of view based on the facts as presented in that article?
>
> LOL. This'll be interesting. It took you four very verbose posts to
> summarise it earlier.

That statement is what an iKook would say because the sheer amount of
detail dumbounds them instantly. They are dumbfounded by data.

What any _adult_ would have noticed in those _four_ posts is that _each_
post contained a summary of a _different_ reference cite.

The fact you _missed_ that fact is worrisome, as it is a clear indicator of
a low IQ which is so low that it can't process at the adult comprehensive
level, Chris.

Seriously.
When you make claims that wrong, I have to wonder about your IQ level.

> One sentence, you say? Go on.

It's the government who (of all entities) shouldn't be tracking you.
--
There are people on Usenet can compehend detail at the adult comprehensive
level, and then there are those who just see detail as a jumble of words.

The iKooks are _always_ of the latter type (it's _why_ they're iKooks).

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> The fact you _missed_ that fact is worrisome, as it is a clear indicator of
> a low IQ which is so low that it can't process at the adult comprehensive
> level, Chris.

BTW, Chris, you "claimed" to have earned a PhD, remember?
In the sciences, in fact, remember?

And yet, four simple reference URLs confound you completely.
Even _after_ I summarized each of them into bullet points.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but if you can't handle even _that_
lowly level of referenced detail, then you couldn't possibly have earned
_any_ degree in the sciences (let alone a PhD).

It's impossible.

On 05/05/2022 15:57, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> The fact you _missed_ that fact is worrisome, as it is a clear
>> indicator of
>> a low IQ which is so low that it can't process at the adult comprehensive
>> level, Chris.
>
> BTW, Chris, you "claimed" to have earned a PhD, remember? In the
> sciences, in fact, remember?
>
> And yet, four simple reference URLs confound you completely.
> Even _after_ I summarized each of them into bullet points.
>
> Pardon me for stating the obvious, but if you can't handle even _that_
> lowly level of referenced detail, then you couldn't possibly have earned
> _any_ degree in the sciences (let alone a PhD).
>
> It's impossible.

The difference I don't care what you write, so don't really pay careful
attention. What you think is important information to share rarely is.

On 05/05/2022 15:36, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> I'm surprised you missed the main two point of that article, Chris.
>>
>> Doubtful. Do they directly address my point above?
>
> The main points are that they can and do track you, personally.

*Individually*, maybe, but not personally. Assuming the data are not
aggregated. Which has still not been clarified.

>
>>> Do you want me to summarize it in one sentence for you, using those
>>> two key
>>> rational points of view based on the facts as presented in that article?
>>
>> LOL. This'll be interesting. It took you four very verbose posts to
>> summarise it earlier.
>
> That statement is what an iKook would say because the sheer amount of
> detail dumbounds them instantly. They are dumbfounded by data.
>
> What any _adult_ would have noticed in those _four_ posts is that _each_
> post contained a summary of a _different_ reference cite.
>
> The fact you _missed_ that fact is worrisome, as it is a clear indicator of
> a low IQ which is so low that it can't process at the adult comprehensive
> level, Chris.
>
> Seriously. When you make claims that wrong, I have to wonder about your
> IQ level.

Are you feeling inadequate or something? What's with the unprovoked attack?

>> One sentence, you say? Go on.
>
> It's the government who (of all entities) shouldn't be tracking you.

Government agencies "track" people all the time for perfectly legitimate
reasons. Be it for health, crime, social, educational, financial, etc.

Chris wrote:

> The difference I don't care what you write, so don't really pay careful
> attention. What you think is important information to share rarely is.

Well, I'll accept that as an excuse, so I apologize for claiming that you
treated four well-written and quite insightful summaries as mere verbosity.

The fact is those four references contained the detail that is important.

Clearly, I have an immense capacity for detail - which is what you feel is
verbosity, and yet, I can summarize in a single sentence more about you
than you, yourself, can summarize about yourself. It's because I know you.
--
Otherwise, without detail, a belief system is purely imaginary.

Chris wrote:

>> The main points are that they can and do track you, personally.
>
> *Individually*, maybe, but not personally. Assuming the data are not
> aggregated. Which has still not been clarified.

We'd have to ask badgolferman why he posted the thread, but I, for one, am
appreciative that he did, because I was unaware my own _government_ was
purchasing, en masse, the location data of millions of innocent people.

>> It's the government who (of all entities) shouldn't be tracking you.
>
> Government agencies "track" people all the time for perfectly legitimate
> reasons. Be it for health, crime, social, educational, financial, etc.

In the United States, we have this concept of "unreasonable" actions.
Clearly, the articles imply these are unreasonable actions, are they not?
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> The main points are that they can and do track you, personally.
>>
>> *Individually*, maybe, but not personally. Assuming the data are not
>> aggregated. Which has still not been clarified.
>
> We'd have to ask badgolferman why he posted the thread, but I, for one, am
> appreciative that he did, because I was unaware my own _government_ was
> purchasing, en masse, the location data of millions of innocent people.

Nice use of very loaded language there.

>>> It's the government who (of all entities) shouldn't be tracking you.
>>
>> Government agencies "track" people all the time for perfectly legitimate
>> reasons. Be it for health, crime, social, educational, financial, etc.
>
> In the United States, we have this concept of "unreasonable" actions.
> Clearly, the articles imply these are unreasonable actions, are they not?

Why are they "clearly unreasonable"?

On 5/5/2022 1:15 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Why are they "clearly unreasonable"?

It's not unreasonable if the reason was to control a once-in-a-century
pandemic that has killed more than a million people. It is unreasonable
if the data would somehow be used for nefarious purposes.

Given the publications that are trying to make a big deal of this whole
thing, it's clear that someone is trying to turn this into a political
issue.

At least the CDC wasn't telling anyone to drink bleach, ingest horse
de-wormer, or take anti-malarial drugs.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 1:15 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Why are they "clearly unreasonable"?
>
> It's not unreasonable if the reason was to control a once-in-a-century
> pandemic that has killed more than a million people. It is unreasonable
> if the data would somehow be used for nefarious purposes.

Lots of "if"s there. It's not clear is it.

> Given the publications that are trying to make a big deal of this whole
> thing, it's clear that someone is trying to turn this into a political
> issue.
>
> At least the CDC wasn't telling anyone to drink bleach, ingest horse
> de-wormer, or take anti-malarial drugs.
>

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 1:15 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Why are they "clearly unreasonable"?
>
> It's not unreasonable if the reason was to control a once-in-a-century
> pandemic that has killed more than a million people. It is unreasonable
> if the data would somehow be used for nefarious purposes.
>
> Given the publications that are trying to make a big deal of this whole
> thing, it's clear that someone is trying to turn this into a political
> issue.
>
> At least the CDC wasn't telling anyone to drink bleach, ingest horse
> de-wormer, or take anti-malarial drugs.
>

Is it okay for the government to track people against their knowledge
without a court warrant or established law?

In article <t51h0t$id0$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
>
> Is it okay for the government to track people against their knowledge
> without a court warrant or established law?

it's legal.

sms wrote:

>> Why are they "clearly unreasonable"?
>
> It's not unreasonable if the reason was to control a once-in-a-century
> pandemic that has killed more than a million people. It is unreasonable
> if the data would somehow be used for nefarious purposes.
>
> Given the publications that are trying to make a big deal of this whole
> thing, it's clear that someone is trying to turn this into a political
> issue.
>
> At least the CDC wasn't telling anyone to drink bleach, ingest horse
> de-wormer, or take anti-malarial drugs.

WTF?
How does Steve's brain work?

As an adult, I will need to point out that Steve, who is a democrat and a
professional politician, just did _exactly_ what he claims the news did.

While you've never heard me say anything good about Trump, this entire
discussion has _nothing_ to do with Trump, even as Steve thinks it does.

I think it's clear that Steve is pulling the same political tricks that he
accuses the news of, as comparing the two actions is unreasonable.

1. The government purchased location date of millions of innocent people
none of whom were accused of a crime (as far as we know).

2. Steve somehow links that _directly_ to the fact that Trump is a moron
which, to Steve, somehow, exonerates the government from guilt.

WTF?
How does Steve's brain work?
--
Steve's brain is 100% political. It makes no sense. Except to him.

Chris wrote:

>> It's not unreasonable if the reason was to control a once-in-a-century
>> pandemic that has killed more than a million people. It is unreasonable
>> if the data would somehow be used for nefarious purposes.
>
> Lots of "if"s there. It's not clear is it.

Chris,

You have to understand the American political system, which pits moron
Democrats against moron Republicans, where, in the USA, they're not all
that different but... just as with Apple vs Android... they feel they
_must_ differentiate themselves somehow (any way they can).

The way the Democrats differentiate themselves from the Republicans, in
this instance as you saw Steve do, is by _fear_ mongering. The fear they
monger means they can do _anything_ they want - even break the law.

Steve is advocating, clearly, that the end justifies the means, so if the
government has to break the law in order to "protect us" from Covid, to
Steve, that's a perfectly fine tradeoff.

Obviously the news reports that badgolferman referenced, think otherwise.

BTW, note that Steve said it's OK to break the law as long as the Democrats
do that, in so much as he compared the Democrats breaking the law to the
moron Trump's drugs that he apparently took when he got Covid.

WTF?
What the hell do those two things have to do with each other?
Nothing right?

I'm an eminantly logical man, Chris, and even I can't see Steve's logic.

Well, actually, I can.

Steve feels that anything the Democrats do (even break the law) is fine,
as long as it fits his agenda of protecting us from ourselves.

I'm not exonerating the Republicans, mind you, as I'm neither; I'm just
trying to make logical sense of why Steve said these two things:

a. The Democrats can break the law all they want, as long as the end
justifies the means of making us safe from Covid, while...

b. The _reason_ (according to Steve!) that the Democrats can break the
law all they want is that Trump is a moron.

While I agree with the latter, I don't see what it has to do with the
former. Do you?

Does anyone other than Steve see ANY connection with the Democrats breaking
the law simply because they monger fear... and Trump being a moron?

badgolferman wrote:

> Is it okay for the government to track people against their knowledge
> without a court warrant or established law?

Hi badgolferman,

I, for one, thank you for unearthing that reference, where I, for another,
can't comprehend what the hell Steve's logic is... can you?

Steve said this, right?

a. The end justifies the means when the government protects us from Covid
b. And yet, somehow (how?) Trump is involved in exonerating the CDC?

WTF?

Badgolferman... can you help me understand what Trump has to do with this?
I thought it was about the CDC overstepping its bounds... wasn't it?

nospam wrote:

>> Is it okay for the government to track people against their knowledge
>> without a court warrant or established law?
>
> it's legal.

Chris isn't from the USA, AFAIK, so he's perhaps not aware of the
foundation upon which this country (the USA) was created upon...

We have, in the USA, a concept of what's "unreasonable" by the government.
Particularly what's unreasonable to do to innocent people.
Innocent people who have _not_ been accused of a crime.

Those are the people we're talking about.

To further help answer Chris' question, a _lot_ of things are legal and
still against the spirit of the concept of "unreasonable search" which,
let's fact it, is a complex issue that isn't going to be resolved on
Usenet.

"sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

| Given the publications that are trying to make a big deal of this whole
| thing, it's clear that someone is trying to turn this into a political
| issue.
|

I'd say it's outrageous to track people like that without
their knowledge. Worse, they were enlisting a sleazeball
private company to get the data. I'm not mad only because
I know perfectly well that anyone who carries a cellphone
powered on is being tracked by all sorts of entities. Google
regularly sells that data to gov't. Apps track you and sell the
data to advertisers or middlemen dataminers. So if you carry
a phone and leave it turned on, you have no business
expecting privacy. That might be wrong, but so far it's not
illegal for them to spy on you.

On 5/5/2022 5:22 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> | Given the publications that are trying to make a big deal of this whole
> | thing, it's clear that someone is trying to turn this into a political
> | issue.
> |
>
> I'd say it's outrageous to track people like that without
> their knowledge. Worse, they were enlisting a sleazeball
> private company to get the data. I'm not mad only because
> I know perfectly well that anyone who carries a cellphone
> powered on is being tracked by all sorts of entities. Google
> regularly sells that data to gov't. Apps track you and sell the
> data to advertisers or middlemen dataminers.

I think that the reason that this story is not gaining any traction is
because the CDC didn't actually track anyone. They bought the tracking
data just like many other entities buy that data. Rather than trying to
sell you something by using that data they were trying to use the data
to figure out how to best fight the pandemic. They were not getting the
carriers to disclose tower data to track individual users, that would
have been a really big story.

"sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

| I think that the reason that this story is not gaining any traction is
| because the CDC didn't actually track anyone. They bought the tracking
| data just like many other entities buy that data. Rather than trying to
| sell you something by using that data they were trying to use the data
| to figure out how to best fight the pandemic. They were not getting the
| carriers to disclose tower data to track individual users, that would
| have been a really big story.

There's no notable difference to my mind. They spied on the
population. It doesn't get traction because most people
neither understand nor know about these issues. If they're told,
most people can't be bothered to care. Ostrich mentality.
TVs spy. Peoples' security cameras get hacked. Spying on
phones is rampant. Most people just don't want to know. It's
too much trouble. If they know they'll have to think about it.
Then they might feel nervous about texting constantly and being
addicted to diddling their phones. Better not to know.

On Fri, 06 May 2022 07:53:33 +1000, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2022 1:15 PM, Chris wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Why are they "clearly unreasonable"?
>>
>> It's not unreasonable if the reason was to control a once-in-a-century
>> pandemic that has killed more than a million people. It is unreasonable
>> if the data would somehow be used for nefarious purposes.
>>
>> Given the publications that are trying to make a big deal of this whole
>> thing, it's clear that someone is trying to turn this into a political
>> issue.
>>
>> At least the CDC wasn't telling anyone to drink bleach, ingest horse
>> de-wormer, or take anti-malarial drugs.
>>
>
> Is it okay for the government to track people against their knowledge
> without a court warrant or established law?

That happens already with ANPR cameras and public CCTV
and cellphone records.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> Is it okay for the government to track people against their knowledge
>> without a court warrant or established law?
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> I, for one, thank you for unearthing that reference, where I, for another,
> can't comprehend what the hell Steve's logic is... can you?
>
> Steve said this, right?
>
> a. The end justifies the means when the government protects us from Covid
> b. And yet, somehow (how?) Trump is involved in exonerating the CDC?
>
> WTF?
>
> Badgolferman... can you help me understand what Trump has to do with this?
> I thought it was about the CDC overstepping its bounds... wasn't it?
>

I don’t know. Even though I’m an Apple iPhone user even my mind can’t make
that reach.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> | Given the publications that are trying to make a big deal of this whole
> | thing, it's clear that someone is trying to turn this into a political
> | issue.
> |
>
> I'd say it's outrageous to track people like that without
> their knowledge.

It's naive to believe you're not being tracked or followed legitimately for
all sorts of reasons. We've all filled in s census in recent years. That's
the most fundamental tracking system.

> Worse, they were enlisting a sleazeball
> private company to get the data.

They have no option. People like you are vehemently against the government
doing it themselves.

In article <t52gv6$ta9$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > I'd say it's outrageous to track people like that without
> > their knowledge.
>
> It's naive to believe you're not being tracked or followed legitimately for
> all sorts of reasons. We've all filled in s census in recent years. That's
> the most fundamental tracking system.

more fundamental than that are financial transactions, which is just
about everything, including cash withdrawals for those who think
they're avoiding being tracked.

Am 06.05.22 um 13:23 schrieb nospam:
> In article <t52gv6$ta9$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'd say it's outrageous to track people like that without
>>> their knowledge.
>>
>> It's naive to believe you're not being tracked or followed legitimately for
>> all sorts of reasons. We've all filled in s census in recent years. That's
>> the most fundamental tracking system.
>
> more fundamental than that are financial transactions, which is just
> about everything, including cash withdrawals for those who think
> they're avoiding being tracked.

For forensic purposes this may be sufficient but not for profiling or
CDC mandate tracking.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum