badgolferman wrote:

>> 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.

badgolferman,

Below is an _adult_ observation of what Steve consistently does...

What I find eminently consistent is that Steve (admittedly a wacko
far-to-the-left Democrat), always wants the government to break the laws to
"protect" us from ourselves...

For example:
a. Steve wants to _force_ people to get the covid shots, for example,
b. And he wants to delete the second amendment for another example.
c. And here, he exonerates the CDC in warrantless searches for yet another.

Every argument Steve uses is one of fear mongering.

Don't even get me started on his global waaa... um, I mean Climate Change
fear mongering, where in the end, the methods are _always_ the same.
A. Steve mongers fear
B. Since he can't convince people on logic

Even for his "Verizon" shills, Steve always resorts to _fear mongering_,
where in that case, if you use T-Mobile, you'll be stuck in some way off
paradise without cell signal (where he always mongers fear).

> Even though I'm an Apple iPhone user even my mind can't make that reach.

Now as for the iKooks... they're different, although they base a _lot_ of
their decisions on pure fear also... e.g., they're afraid of automatic call
recorders, and they're afraid of torrents, and they're afraid of having
options to choose your frequency bands, etc. (this list goes on forever)

What's eminently consistent with the iKooks though is how much they _hate_
any basic functionality that a (smart?) smartphone is supposed to have.

They _hate_ choice.
They _hate_ functionality.

They _hate_ everything that Android has that the iPhone doesn't.

Hence, the iKooks consistently fabricate wildly fantastic _different_
excuses for the lack of basic functionality in the iPhone... so what's
consistent aren't their fabrications but what is consistent with iKooks is
that they always defend the lack of functionality in iPhones, to the death.

What's interesting in both Steve and with the iKooks is they don't even
realize how consistent they are in how they argue _everything_ since none
is ever based on actual logic but on fear and excuses alone.
a. Steve mongers fear to convince people of what logic can't
b. iKooks monger excuses to convince people of what logic can't

In your case, and that of Ant and very few others on the Apple newsgroup,
you don't fabricate excuses for why the iPhone lacks basic functionality.

The iKooks do.
--
The problem with being intelligent and well educated is you see too much.

sms wrote:

> I think that the reason that this story is not gaining any traction is
> because the CDC didn't actually track anyone.

It wasn't just the CDC.

Your excuse that the end justifies the means has to logically further
expand to the other government agencies who bought surveillance location
data on millions of innocent people who were not accused of a crime.

The problem with being intelligent is that I see right through every one of
your fear-mongering always purely emotional-based arguments, Steve.

Mayayana wrote:

> 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.

While all that is logically and sensibly true...

It's notable that when Apple asked iOS users if they would let companies
track them across apps...

Most people said no.

Chris 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.

Yes. But. The government is _different_ in the United States Chris.
The government is held to a "reasonable" standard in our Consitution.

> We've all filled in s census in recent years. That's
> the most fundamental tracking system.

The government is _different_ than companies.
You can drop companies - but you can't drop the government.

While your argument is logically true, but then it's also naive to believe
that innocent people don't like being tracked by the government when they
haven't been accused of a crime.

The government has the power to condemn you to death, Chris.
That's not the same power as any company has in the USA.

>> 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.

The government is held to a higher standard than companies are in the USA.

nospam 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.

I'm wondering why the various high-tax states (you know who they are)
haven't yet (to my knowledge) tracked out of state purchases for the
purpose of nailing those who say "$0" to purchases made online that you
didn't happen to pay any sales tax on at the time of purchase.

There's so much tracking data, and not only the purchase itself but the
shipping too.

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>> 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.

With all this cellphone based tracking, it's getting harder and harder to
commit a crime of passion and still get away with it anymore!

In article <t53m01$1r2b$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> > It's naive to believe you're not being tracked or followed legitimately for
> > all sorts of reasons.
>
> Yes. But. The government is _different_ in the United States Chris.
> The government is held to a "reasonable" standard in our Consitution.

the united states government consistently ignores the constitution.

> The government is _different_ than companies.

you don't say! who would have guessed.

> You can drop companies - but you can't drop the government.

what do you call a bunch of seditious treasonweasels trying to
overthrow it on jan 6 2021?

> The government is held to a higher standard than companies are in the USA.

yep, you really are that stupid.

In article <t53m4u$1th9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> I'm wondering why the various high-tax states (you know who they are)

namely the one you live in.

> haven't yet (to my knowledge)

that's not saying much of anything.

> tracked out of state purchases for the
> purpose of nailing those who say "$0" to purchases made online that you
> didn't happen to pay any sales tax on at the time of purchase.

after wayfair, online sellers add sales tax at the time of purchase.

that even includes ebay, including for private sales between two
individuals for used products for which sales tax has already been paid
when it was purchased new. that's very clearly double-taxation (or more
than double, depending on how many times the item has been resold).

california adds a ridiculous surcharge for out of state vehicles for no
other reason than because it's out of state. it's emissions, which is
what matters, is irrelevant.

some states match or exceed california's requirements, making the
entire thing nothing more than a money grab.

and then there's the shitty california gas blends that pollute more and
reduces the lifetime of engines. but i digress.

In article <t53m83$1ujf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> With all this cellphone based tracking, it's getting harder and harder to
> commit a crime of passion and still get away with it anymore!

pro tip: don't carry a cellphone when criming.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> 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.

I didn't and our census operation isn't allowed to
let anyone see the data, even other parts of govt.

> That's the most fundamental tracking system.

Not in some countrys.

>> 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.

nospam wrote:

> after wayfair, online sellers add sales tax at the time of purchase.

Wayfair?
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+is+wayfair>

I'm ignorant of "wayfair", but, luckily, ignorance is easily curable.
*WAYFAIR CASE + SALES TAX*
<https://www.taxconnex.com/wayfair-case-sales-tax>
"Almost all states now require companies that have nexus - a presence
or a level of sales that triggers legal obligation, to collect
and remit sales tax."

Specifically:
"physical presence in the internet age is no longer required
to create nexus"
"an out-of-state seller could establish nexus through economic
activity alone"

> that even includes ebay, including for private sales between two
> individuals for used products for which sales tax has already been paid
> when it was purchased new. that's very clearly double-taxation (or more
> than double, depending on how many times the item has been resold).

Only a handful of states haven't enacted "wayfair" related tax laws.
�<https://www.taxconnex.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Economic%20Nexus%20Map%20July%202021.png>

Each state seems to be different, according to that one article I skimmed.
"Alabama's threshold, for instance, is $250,000 per year in sales
in the state. Colorado's threshold is greater than $100,000 in sales
or 200 or more separate transactions. Georgia's is more than $250,000
in sales annually in the previous or current calendar year or more
than 200 transactions in the state. Some states' sales/use tax laws
do not impose a filing requirement if a seller is not making
"retail sales of tangible personal property." Other states take
exactly the opposite approach."

> california adds a ridiculous surcharge for out of state vehicles for no
> other reason than because it's out of state. it's emissions, which is
> what matters, is irrelevant.

If that's the "smog impact fee" that had _nothing_ whatsoever to do with
smog or its impact, that was declared unconstitutional and California had
to pay back everyone who asked for their money back (but in the end, they
kept more money than they made because you had to ask for it yourself).

Still, California is a big enough state to be the only one that I know of
that doesn't allow "new" cars bought out of state, where if the vehicle wsa
bought by a resident from out of state with fewer than 7,500 miles
(motorcycles too!) then you can essemtoa;;u never register it in CA!
<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/vehicle-industry-registration-procedures-manual-2/nonresident-vehicles/out-of-state-california-resident/>

> some states match or exceed california's requirements, making the
> entire thing nothing more than a money grab.

I agree with you that the high-tax states (often Democrat controlled) are
the greediest, since they will break any law just to take your money away.

In the case of California's smog impact fee, they broke every law in the
book, and yet, they _knew_ it was unconstitutional from the start - and -
yet - they made money in the end anyway (since not everyone got
reimbursed).

As with Steve's politics, they always claim the end justifies the means.

> and then there's the shitty california gas blends that pollute more and
> reduces the lifetime of engines. but i digress.

Don't even get me started on California gas prices as I buy scores of
gallons at Costco at a time as can be seen with this recent photo of mine.
<https://i.postimg.cc/28PFHjpS/gas01.jpg> California $5.30/gallon

Fun fact: What's the one state that _limits_ how much gas you can carry in
a passenger vehicle (far & well below the normal hazmat federal laws).
--
Intelligent well educated people aren't afraid to cure ignorance.

nospam wrote:

>> Yes. But. The government is _different_ in the United States Chris.
>> The government is held to a "reasonable" standard in our Consitution.
>
> the united states government consistently ignores the constitution.

Sometimes you are astute nospam, because I can't possibly disagree.
I find that people use the government as their personal weapon.

For example, Steve weaponizes the government every chance he can get.

To him, breaking the law means nothing as long as he can _force_ people to
do what he wants them to do (like he does with injecting drugs into them).

>> The government is _different_ than companies.
>
> you don't say! who would have guessed.

You shouldn't act so surprised, nospam, in that Chris may not be aware that
our entire fundamental foundation is based on the people controlling the
government, and not the other way around.

>> You can drop companies - but you can't drop the government.
>
> what do you call a bunch of seditious treasonweasels trying to
> overthrow it on jan 6 2021?

I don't even have words for what that was. As much as I hate lying
politicians, at least the guy who invented the Internet gracefully conceded
defeat in a timely manner (even though he could have protested further).

I give him credit for that.

>> The government is held to a higher standard than companies are in the USA.
>
> yep, you really are that stupid.

The fact you do that childish kindergarten garbage, nospam, is further
proof of your incredibly low self esteem.

Grow up.
--
The reason you hate me is you bullshit all day and I catch you on your
bullshit and you feel inadequate because your bullshit won't work on me.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris 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.
>
> Yes. But. The government is _different_ in the United States Chris.

All governments are different, Arlen.

> The government is held to a "reasonable" standard in our Consitution.

You've yet to show that the CDC's action was unreasonable.

>> We've all filled in s census in recent years. That's
>> the most fundamental tracking system.
>
> The government is _different_ than companies.
> You can drop companies - but you can't drop the government.

You can change governments. It's called democracy.

> While your argument is logically true, but then it's also naive to believe
> that innocent people don't like being tracked by the government when they
> haven't been accused of a crime.
>
> The government has the power to condemn you to death, Chris.

That's a real "unreasonable" activity that should have been dealt with a
long time ago.

> That's not the same power as any company has in the USA.

Are you really saying that no american company has killed people? Really?
Boeing is one of many.

>>> 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.
>
> The government is held to a higher standard than companies are in the USA.

Why not keep everyone to the same standards? Why should companies be
allowed to have lower standards?

In article <t53r8v$at7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> > after wayfair, online sellers add sales tax at the time of purchase.
>
> Wayfair?

yes

> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+is+wayfair>
>
> I'm ignorant of "wayfair",

along with many, many other things

> but, luckily, ignorance is easily curable.

often not, with you being the prime example.

> *WAYFAIR CASE + SALES TAX*
> <https://www.taxconnex.com/wayfair-case-sales-tax>
> "Almost all states now require companies that have nexus - a presence
> or a level of sales that triggers legal obligation, to collect
> and remit sales tax."
>
> Specifically:
> "physical presence in the internet age is no longer required
> to create nexus"
> "an out-of-state seller could establish nexus through economic
> activity alone"

that's a gross misinterpretation of the case.

the supreme court held that companies *did* have nexus because a cookie
or an app can be stored on a user's computer, thereby giving the
merchant a presence in whatever state the user was in.

that is a bizarre interpretation, since cookies and apps can easily be
deleted at any time (some people delete cookies when quitting the
browser, for example), whereas an actual nexus cannot, plus not all
transactions use cookies or dedicated apps either.

another problem is that the transaction could be made on mobile device
while transiting from one state to another, which have different tax
rates.

that's what happens when elderly justices who have no understanding
about technology try to legislate technology.

> > that even includes ebay, including for private sales between two
> > individuals for used products for which sales tax has already been paid
> > when it was purchased new. that's very clearly double-taxation (or more
> > than double, depending on how many times the item has been resold).
>
> Only a handful of states haven't enacted "wayfair" related tax laws.
>
> ?<https://www.taxconnex.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Economic%20Nexus%20Map%20July%202021.p
> ng>

yep, you really are that stupid.

the states in grey do not have a sales tax.

> Each state seems to be different, according to that one article I skimmed.

different states have different sales tax rates! who knew!

sales tax rates varies per state, county and sometimes even city. for
example, santa clara county's sales tax is higher than san mateo
county. sales tax in chicago proper is higher than outside of chicago,
yet still within cook county.

that means that sellers must maintain a database of sales tax rates for
*every* state, county and city, which can change at any time, subject
to whatever politicians decide to do.

nospam wrote:

>> I'm ignorant of "wayfair",
>
> along with many, many other things

Hi nospam,

Let me try to teach you an _adult_ approach, which is that I put that there
on purpose because the point is that an intelligent educated person knows
what he knows while the left side dunning kruger idiot thinks he knows
everything there is to know.

When I say I'm ignorant of stuff, it's done with the confidence that _all_
intelligent well-educated people know that - and they know they can learn
if they want to.

You... on the other hand, _always_ take that as a chance to finally, for
once in your life, jump on that statement and claim you're the smartest guy
in the world. You do that _every_ single time I leave that trap for you.

Like a small idiot kindergarten bully, you fall into that trap every single
time I leave it for you. You never fail.

It's how I know your own self esteem is in the toilet, nospam.

You're like a small child who knows he's was left back years in a row so
when someone leaves him an easy opening, he pounces on it - like you do.

I'll leave that exact same trap again & again in the future... just to see
if you're capable of learning something adult for once in your life.

Just watch.

>
>> but, luckily, ignorance is easily curable.
>
> often not, with you being the prime example.

Heh heh heh...

Ever wonder why the mouse never figures out how the trap works?

Chris wrote:

>> Yes. But. The government is _different_ in the United States Chris.
>
> All governments are different,

Chris,
Do you have any idea _how_ our Constitution is _different_ from yours?

Saying a platitude such as "all governments are different" is bullshit.
It shows zero understanding of _how_ the US is different from all others.

Stop saying stupid things.
It's below your intelligence.

>> The government is held to a "reasonable" standard in our Consitution.
>
> You've yet to show that the CDC's action was unreasonable.

It's not going to happen in a Usenet article since that's something for our
Supreme Court to decide, and, even then, they're often not unanimous in
their verdicts, so even they disagree (which is why there is an odd number
of them I guess).

The fact is that the articles exist, and that I read them and that others
who read them (like badgolferman) are reasonable people who understand what
the articles said happened.

If you want to be one of those unreasonable people who defend every action
to the death no matter what, then so be it.

There's a reason you're an iKook after all so it's not unexpected for you
to take a position which is based on ignorance and totally devoid of fact.

>
>>> We've all filled in s census in recent years. That's
>>> the most fundamental tracking system.
>>
>> The government is _different_ than companies.
>> You can drop companies - but you can't drop the government.
>
> You can change governments. It's called democracy.

Another stupid statement from you in light of the fact we are simply
discussing whether or not it's a reasonable action in the United States for
our own government to surveil the activities of millions of innocent people
who have not been accused of a crime.

The whole point of those articles is that a free press can criticize what
actions the government takes, and then the people can decide for themselves
if they feel those actions are reasonable or not.

The problem is the morons outnumber the intelligentsia a thousand to one
(or some huge factor), which means the government isn't always held
accountable until enough of the well educated people can band together.

>> The government is held to a higher standard than companies are in the USA.
>
> Why not keep everyone to the same standards? Why should companies be
> allowed to have lower standards?

In the United States, the government is held to standards of lack of
discrimination, for example, that private companies aren't held to.

Examples abound, where, for example, I've never looked up how Hooters can
hire its service personnel nor how the Dallas cheerleader's do either; but
they do.

Private companies aren't held to the same standards as the government is.

There are also standards of tracking people that the government is held to
that private companies aren't held to.

I think it was Steve who astutely noted that fact, where the government
_bought_ the tracking data from the private companies.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Yes. But. The government is _different_ in the United States Chris.
>>
>> All governments are different,
>
> Chris,
> Do you have any idea _how_ our Constitution is _different_ from yours?

We don't have a written constitution ;)

> Saying a platitude such as "all governments are different" is bullshit.
> It shows zero understanding of _how_ the US is different from all others.
>
> Stop saying stupid things.
> It's below your intelligence.

How's that possible? I'm already of really low intelligence, according to
you.

>>> The government is held to a "reasonable" standard in our Consitution.
>>
>> You've yet to show that the CDC's action was unreasonable.
>
> It's not going to happen in a Usenet article since that's something for our
> Supreme Court to decide, and, even then, they're often not unanimous in
> their verdicts, so even they disagree (which is why there is an odd number
> of them I guess).

If they can't agree on what's unreasonable how can you be so absolute
regarding the CDC's unreasonableness?

> The fact is that the articles exist, and that I read them and that others
> who read them (like badgolferman) are reasonable people who understand what
> the articles said happened.

I'm not disputing what happen even if the article shows little evidence and
little detail.

> If you want to be one of those unreasonable people who defend every action
> to the death no matter what, then so be it.

I'm not defending anything. I want to know why you (and maybe others)
believe it is "clearly unreasonable"? What would make it more reasonably?

> There's a reason you're an iKook after all so it's not unexpected for you
> to take a position which is based on ignorance and totally devoid of fact.

I can defend my position. I asking you to defend yours. Going off piste on
the constitution or the supreme court which doesn't address the point is
not useful.

>>
>>>> We've all filled in s census in recent years. That's
>>>> the most fundamental tracking system.
>>>
>>> The government is _different_ than companies.
>>> You can drop companies - but you can't drop the government.
>>
>> You can change governments. It's called democracy.
>
> Another stupid statement from you in light of the fact we are simply
> discussing whether or not it's a reasonable action in the United States for
> our own government to surveil the activities of millions of innocent people
> who have not been accused of a crime.
>
> The whole point of those articles is that a free press can criticize what
> actions the government takes, and then the people can decide for themselves
> if they feel those actions are reasonable or not.

You may have a free press, but it's completely unregulated. You have many
mainstream sources able to make up whatever they want to push an ideology
on their audience.

> The problem is the morons outnumber the intelligentsia a thousand to one
> (or some huge factor), which means the government isn't always held
> accountable until enough of the well educated people can band together.

It's no wonder when the US population get bombarded with lies 24/7.

>>> The government is held to a higher standard than companies are in the USA.
>>
>> Why not keep everyone to the same standards? Why should companies be
>> allowed to have lower standards?
>
> In the United States, the government is held to standards of lack of
> discrimination, for example, that private companies aren't held to.

But why? Here in europe everyone has the same standards. Companies have to
abide by the regulations.

> Examples abound, where, for example, I've never looked up how Hooters can
> hire its service personnel nor how the Dallas cheerleader's do either; but
> they do.
>
> Private companies aren't held to the same standards as the government is.
>
> There are also standards of tracking people that the government is held to
> that private companies aren't held to.
>
> I think it was Steve who astutely noted that fact, where the government
> _bought_ the tracking data from the private companies.

What's the alternative? The government needs to do research on people's
movements during the pandemic. Or do you prefer ignorance and just hope it
didn't happen again?

On 5/5/2022 9:27 AM, Chris wrote:
> On 05/05/2022 15:36, Andy Burnelli wrote:

>>
>> 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 9:27 AM, Chris wrote:
>> On 05/05/2022 15:36, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA

I don't click random yt links. What does it show? Or what point are you
wanting to make.

On 5/8/2022 12:36 AM, Chris wrote:
> Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2022 9:27 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2022 15:36, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA
>
> I don't click random yt links. What does it show? Or what point are you
> wanting to make.

Not sure why you'd be scared of Youtube link. But it's an excellent John
Oliver piece.

Am 08.05.22 um 09:36 schrieb Chris:
> I don't click random yt links. What does it show? Or what point are you
> wanting to make.

What is your concern about Youtube-inks?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 08.05.22 um 09:36 schrieb Chris:
>> I don't click random yt links. What does it show? Or what point are you
>> wanting to make.
>
>
> What is your concern about Youtube-inks?
>
>

I can read faster than I can watch a video.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 08.05.22 um 09:36 schrieb Chris:
>> I don't click random yt links. What does it show? Or what point are you
>> wanting to make.
>
>
> What is your concern about Youtube-inks?

No concern. Just can't be arsed watching something that could be written in
a single line/paragraph, which makes up 90% of yt content.

Sharing yt links is also a little ironic given the topic of this thread.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 12:36 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2022 9:27 AM, Chris wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/2022 15:36, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA
>>
>> I don't click random yt links. What does it show? Or what point are you
>> wanting to make.
>
> Not sure why you'd be scared of Youtube link. But it's an excellent John
> Oliver piece.

Where did I say I was scared?

John Oliver content is not available outside the US or at least not in the
UK.

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 9:27 AM, Chris wrote:
>> On 05/05/2022 15:36, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA

Having watched it via Psiphon, I'm so glad I live in a country where we
have actual data protection laws. Cambridge Analytica did something similar
and got shat upon from a great height.

The problem I see here is not that the US Government is tracking you, but
that there's effectively no restrictions in who can track you and for what
reason.