What's the White House's plan, anyway?
-
@Jolly said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@jon-nyc said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
It’s kind of ironic how many people who have every movement of theirs tracked for advertising purposes would never allow it for public health purposes.
No, what's ironic to the point of hilarity is that these people still think this ship hasn't left the harbor. It did ten years ago, and when Snowden leaked proof of it, instead of paying any attention to what was leaked, the talk was traitor this and treason that.
The government already has your data. It's not that they can get access with a warrant, they're storing it right now. And oh by the way, it's not anonymous data they're collecting.
But oh sure please, let's freak out over contact tracing because I totally missed the past decade.
That's ok, I didn't see you freaking out at all about the FBI lying about evidence in order to obtain a FISA court warrant.
Hmmm...False data, secret court, anonymous sealed grand juries, threatening suspects with prison time for their innocent families...Gee, that's just hunk-dory...
Indeed, a decade-long initiative to collect and store data from every American citizen and foreign national who uses Apple and Android devices is exactly the same thing as a FISA court warrant.
If you didn't read up about the PRISM program, then you simply don't have any context to have a coherent opinion about this. What they're going to do in May is silly compared to what the government did in secret ten years ago.
@Aqua-Letifer said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@Jolly said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@jon-nyc said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
It’s kind of ironic how many people who have every movement of theirs tracked for advertising purposes would never allow it for public health purposes.
No, what's ironic to the point of hilarity is that these people still think this ship hasn't left the harbor. It did ten years ago, and when Snowden leaked proof of it, instead of paying any attention to what was leaked, the talk was traitor this and treason that.
The government already has your data. It's not that they can get access with a warrant, they're storing it right now. And oh by the way, it's not anonymous data they're collecting.
But oh sure please, let's freak out over contact tracing because I totally missed the past decade.
That's ok, I didn't see you freaking out at all about the FBI lying about evidence in order to obtain a FISA court warrant.
Hmmm...False data, secret court, anonymous sealed grand juries, threatening suspects with prison time for their innocent families...Gee, that's just hunk-dory...
Indeed, a decade-long initiative to collect and store data from every American citizen and foreign national who uses Apple and Android devices is exactly the same thing as a FISA court warrant.
If you didn't read up about the PRISM program, then you simply don't have any context to have a coherent opinion about this. What they're going to do in May is silly compared to what the government did in secret ten years ago.
You can't see the forest for the trees. It's not simply that the government is collecting data, it's what do they do with that data once they get it. Secondly, if they don't like it, or you, officials within the government have already shown a proclivity to lie about evidence of data, To Effect Whatever Outcome They Desire, Regardless of Guilt Or Innocence.!
-
Really? Color me surprised!
That's exactly what I said was the problem with government data collection—that any story can be ginned up to leverage it against you. Get enough data on someone and anybody can have a solid case made against them. That's what's so funny about falsifying evidence; you can do anyone in without resorting to that now.
I said that here, many times. And all anyone on the right wanted to talk about was how much of a traitor Snowden was. You couldn't possibly be more correct about "forest for the trees."
Please love yourself.
-
You want to go back to work? Go back to work.
You don't want to go back to work? Don't go back to work.
That isn't up to the governor or the president or anyone else.
@Copper said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
You want to go back to work? Go back to work.
You don't want to go back to work? Don't go back to work.
That isn't up to the governor or the president or anyone else.
And if I kill somebody else, that's a sacrifice I'm willing for them to make, right?
-
@Copper said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
You want to go back to work? Go back to work.
You don't want to go back to work? Don't go back to work.
That isn't up to the governor or the president or anyone else.
And if I kill somebody else, that's a sacrifice I'm willing for them to make, right?
@Doctor-Phibes said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@Copper said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
You want to go back to work? Go back to work.
You don't want to go back to work? Don't go back to work.
That isn't up to the governor or the president or anyone else.
And if I kill somebody else, that's a sacrifice I'm willing for them to make, right?
That is against the law.
-
Really? Color me surprised!
That's exactly what I said was the problem with government data collection—that any story can be ginned up to leverage it against you. Get enough data on someone and anybody can have a solid case made against them. That's what's so funny about falsifying evidence; you can do anyone in without resorting to that now.
I said that here, many times. And all anyone on the right wanted to talk about was how much of a traitor Snowden was. You couldn't possibly be more correct about "forest for the trees."
@Aqua-Letifer said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
Really? Color me surprised!
That's exactly what I said was the problem with government data collection—that any story can be ginned up to leverage it against you. Get enough data on someone and anybody can have a solid case made against them. That's what's so funny about falsifying evidence; you can do anyone in without resorting to that now.
I said that here, many times. And all anyone on the right wanted to talk about was how much of a traitor Snowden was. You couldn't possibly be more correct about "forest for the trees."
You're equating the Snowden general stuff with the Trump *specific * stuff. One is a possibility, the other is a lead pipe cinch.
-
One already happened, the other is definitely going to, starting next month. And it's going to remain voluntary. White House hasn't even entertained compulsory use yet.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@Copper said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
You want to go back to work? Go back to work.
You don't want to go back to work? Don't go back to work.
That isn't up to the governor or the president or anyone else.
And if I kill somebody else, that's a sacrifice I'm willing for them to make, right?
That is against the law.
@Copper said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
@Copper said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
You want to go back to work? Go back to work.
You don't want to go back to work? Don't go back to work.
That isn't up to the governor or the president or anyone else.
And if I kill somebody else, that's a sacrifice I'm willing for them to make, right?
That is against the law.
Last time I checked, accidentally giving somebody a virus which went on to kill them wasn't considered to be a crime.
Obviously, we can keep on making sarcastic remarks all day, but it's not really going to achieve very much. In the real world most of us inhabit it's clearly going to be somebody's decision when we should be allowed to go back to work. It is up to other people to decide, whether that's the governor, or the President, or my senior management, or whoever.
-
Yes, of course if you intend to kill someone accidentally that is fine, please go ahead.
And my comment above advising AL to follow his heart was meant after our elected officials give the go-ahead.
I believe he was saying he did not want to be forced to go back to work. The president won't force him to go.
-
@xenon said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
I don't understand what this means:
Anyone?
As in, I don't know what he means by this at all.
I do.
Carrot and stick.
-
@xenon said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
I don't understand what this means:
Anyone?
As in, I don't know what he means by this at all.
I do.
Carrot and stick.
@Jolly said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
I do.
Carrot and stick.
https://myrecipeconfessions.com/side-dishes/grilled-maple-carrot-kabobs/ -
He's saying the plan is almost complete and will be rolled out very soon, all of which means very little.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
He's saying the plan is almost complete and will be rolled out very soon, all of which means very little.
-
He's saying the plan is almost complete and will be rolled out very soon, all of which means very little.
@Mik said in What's the White House's plan, anyway?:
He's saying the plan is almost complete and will be rolled out very soon
I've said that a couple of time right before I opened up Microsoft Project and started going OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT....
I just hope he's got people working on it than me
