Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Govt. wants cell carriers to save user location data

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by PlayboyPenguin, May 12, 2011.

  1. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    During a hearing about Apple and Google's user location-tracking practices (both Apple and Google have been secretly saving people movements with their cell phones with hidden programs), Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein said that the government wants wireless network operators to store user location data for a period of two years. "When this information is not stored, it may be impossible for law enforcement to collect essential evidence," he said.

    I do not usually start threads of a political nature, it is not what I come to gun forums for, but this chaps my behind quite a bit.

    This whole mindset of treating every citizen like a potential criminal even though they have committed no crime is disgusting to me. What's next? Do we start making every citizen check in with a law enforcement official weekly to account for their activities just in case they commit a crime in the future? Do we start recording people's phone conversations just in case they do something wrong some day?
     
  2. MA Duce

    MA Duce Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    117
    I agree completely that this is an unwarranted intrusion. But there is a simple solution. Don't buy into the technology. I have a simple plain jane phone that does not have any internet capability. They can of course locate by tower pings, but only if they are looking for it at the time, and no movement information is stored. Google and Apple are NOT your friends.
     
  3. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    4,381
    I'll bet you voted for this admin though didn't you PP?
    You may want to re-think that next year.

    Amazon.com: Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life (9781596985971): Terry Jeffrey: Books
    Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life

     
  4. PBinWA

    PBinWA Clark County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    359
    If people are truly against this type of law then they need to vote for true libertarian candidates and reel the government back. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have demonstrated any concern for individual rights in a long time.
     
  5. MA Duce

    MA Duce Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    117
    * How Obamacare sets the stage for a federal takeover of the economy This one bulletpoint sets me to doubting the whole book. If anyone actually thinks one national government has the power to control the workings of global corporate financial interests they are living in a delusion. National control of ANY local economy has been dead since the 1950s, and anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either a fool or selling something.
     
  6. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    That is the problem with trying to discuss issues like this. Immediately people jump onboard and start spewing partisan garbage and propaganda. That immediately makes people dismiss the whole topic and ignore the real issue that is actually happening under their noses.
     
  7. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    That looks like a preemptive search and seizure to me..... definitely unconstitutional.
     
  8. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    You just gave me an idea for a new word. PolitiTroll!
     
  9. rufus

    rufus State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    930
    I agree completely. Just wait until they put GPS devices in our cars to tax us on miles driven. My next business venture just may involve GPS jamming technologies. Think of the potential!
     
  10. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    They'll be chipping us like dogs at the Vet next.
     
  11. MA Duce

    MA Duce Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    117
    Good idea, but jamming can be detected..you need to develop an means to skew the data to show a false position.......
     
  12. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    4,381
    And if you don't think that dotgov health insurance isn't the "keys to the kingdom" you're delusional.
    When the dotgov controls your insurance premiums based on your lifestyle, hobbies etc. you will be "taxed" via premiums, based on those activities.
    When they raise taxes on ammo 200% to pay for gunshot wounds in trauma centers, you will be howling about how "unfair" the policies enacted by the guy you voted for, are.

    Government run healthcare insurance gives way too much power to those that would take your rights. Just because they may have to pay for injuries and treatment because you wanted to do something they felt was "risky."
    Whether they do it through the front door or the back door, we'll all lose.

    You're smarter than this M2. You should be able to recognize this for what it is. Just another grasp for control.
     
  13. MA Duce

    MA Duce Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    117
    I'm not doubting that the government plans for health care are off base, but to say it will lead to a federal take over of the economy totally ignores the multinational nature of our economy, one which has long since escaped the control of national policy, (witness the oil situation) I would hope the bulletpoint was marketing hyperbole and not an assertion of fact.
    I am absolutely opposed to a nanny state deciding what I do to my body or with my free time, but that level of control is not "controlling the national economy".....the multinationals will not allow a measley trillion dollar health boon-doggle get in the way of their game.
     
  14. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    Does this line of reasoning mean that the large insurance companies are currently in charge of our economy?
     
  15. mjbskwim

    mjbskwim Salmon,Idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,379
    Likes Received:
    7,596
    Not real sure if this is serious or not.
    The answer is of course they are and have been for some time.
     
  16. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    So, it is better to give all that power and control to a very select few that are not even under an obligation to at least appear to be for the people and of the people than it is to give it to a citizen run government?
     
  17. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    4,381
    To a large extent,... Yes. (see mjbskwim's answer above)
    Name a safety (nanny state if you will) law that has been passed that doesn't benefit the InsCos.
    We have way more government mandated "safety requirements" on our cars now than 20-30 years ago, yet our premiums have skyrocketed. We have "managed care" but yet costs and premiums are through the roof. Gee, great management!

    Obama's "healthcare" plan does nothing to make health care more affordable. Insurance companies control every aspect of healthcare costs via sales of policies to providers and patients. By raising malpractice insurance to providers, that cause doctors, hospitals, labs etc to raise rates, they have made it impossible to afford health care without buying their patient-product.
    Now, thanks to OC, since you are required to purchase a patient product, they can increase your premiums at their discretion. You can't opt out under the plan, so consumer choice has been limited, or eliminated all together. And if you attempt to, the government imposes a fine. Don't pay a government fine and watch what happens to you.

    All the dems had to do to avoid this would have been to stipulate that companies, or their subsidiaries, that sell malpractice insurance would be forbidden to sell any form of patient-product health insurance. Then we'd have had InsCos battling one another to control costs, and premiums. AKA applying free market principles to insurance. Something InsCos DIDN'T WANT!
    The dotgov broke up MaBell, yet handed this boondoggle to the InsCos on a silver platter.

    Now, you have to realize that these are the same people that "insure" your house, it's contents, (all that "neat stuff" in your gun safe) your car, motorcycle, your boat, your kids, your life. They know who you are, what you do, how far you drive, where you work and how you spend your leisure time.
    And now you are paying them to know the rest, by government mandate.

    That's a de-facto monopoly. Granted it isn't the entire economy, but it is certainly a large chunk of the average American's activities.
    Put that together with the uber banks and the unions, and you have corporate oligarchy.
    From our friends at Wiki:
    Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Using the above, apply the idea of a gov/InsCo partnership and see if it doesn't add up to ObamaCare. Think back to Obama's union speeches. Does any of the above sound familiar?
    And all the while, he tells the lower/middle class that government is doing it to "provide" for them, their kids etc. and that taxes on the rich will pay for it. Their "fair share" of income redistribution. Joe Biden's "patriotic" taxpayers and all that.

    Under that system you can't have citizens running around doing whatever they want, unless they pay additional premiums in line with their "risky activities.". Shooting dangerous guns, riding bikes without a helmet, rock climbing, hunting, going ocean fishing in small boats, driving cars capable of 100mph or more, etc etc. That will just get people hurt, and cost the taxpayers more. That would be putting an "undue burden" on ratepayers. When the people that happen to want to engage in these activities are in a lower income bracket, and the dotgov is subsidizing their HC premiums, then something will have to give.
    And if the American people insist on these activities, then taxes will be levied to pay for any undesirable consequences.
    Like the tax on ammo I mentioned above.

    No sorry, we have to limit YOUR access to "risky and/or dangerous activities" for "the common good."
    Or you can "pay-through-the-nose." Dispute that? Don't want to pay? Then big brother will just hammer you at tax time.

    Gee, what a (sic) great system.
     
  18. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    4,381
    If you investigate the political influence of the insurance industry you will find that Obama merely cemented the partnership between InsCos and the dotgov with ObamaCare. Just like he did with the banks, and the unions.
    As a means of supplying profit to the companies, and government control of the people, it is unsurpassed. With the exception of government controlled single payer, no greater influence on the people could be wrought.
     
  19. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    4,381
    So M2, how many countries that are a part of our "multinational" economy can you name that aren't socialist, or have a strong socialist bent?
    And how much influence do those countries have on companies based there?

    Don't you think they might want to "level the playing field" by having American companies play by their rules?
     
  20. deadeye

    deadeye Albany,OR. Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Lets get back to the original discussion and leave the debates of healthcare and insurance to another site.

    I would be more concerned that this may set a precident for future tracking devices on other goods such as firearms. I understand that the info they are wanting saved is due to programs (apps) used in the phones and not actual devices in the phone but it would set a negative precident. What if I dont use those apps in my phone and others who do think it is unfair and the powers that be decide all phones need a tracking device of some sort, we all know it would happen. I for one think that the only people that should be tracked are the convicted/released violent criminals due to possible repeat offenses and all government representitives.

    OK now you can throw the tomatoes....:shy: