Forums | MacLife

Well, to be fair, FISA felonies didn't deter the last gang.

resedit wrote:

The fact is that data collected from previous census has been used by government for dastardly deeds (the rounding up of Japanese after Pearl Harbor).

We need to learn from our history.

Government just can't be trusted to have that kind of data.

Are you suggesting the Japanese wouldn't have been interned if there hadn't been census data?

If they hadn't had the census they would've used tax information. If they hadn't had tax information they'd have used housing registries. If they hadn't had housing registries they'd have used the frigging phone book. If they hadn't had the phone book they would've used the army to go door-to-door.

It wasn't the census that caused the internment, it was the decision to make it happen.

Sheesh.

I think they use the GPS units because it is a quick, easy and accurate way to record the location of the surveyors. Also it's new tech and that gives people boners or something.

user wrote:

I think they use the GPS units because it is a quick, easy and accurate way to record the location of the surveyors. Also it's new tech and that gives people boners or something.

GPS would be a good way to tell if a census taker spent his day at a bar or going about his/her route.

Pariah wrote:

Funny to see such concern coming from someone who was so comfortable with all the domestic spying and snooping the Bush admin was up to.

Please do not mis-represent my position.
I always made it very clear that I only supported wire tapping when one caller was outside the country (thus not domestic) and a known terrorist.

resedit wrote:

. . . and a known terrorist.

As determined by the executive, with no judicial determination.

KHannon wrote:

resedit wrote:

. . . and a known terrorist.

As determined by the executive, with no judicial determination.

Actually, back when the threads were discussed, I specified proper oversight.

You can dig through those posts if you really want to.

It's clear people here have no interest in honest discussion. They want to demonize me, even when it requires blatant flat out lying about my positions.

I'm about to say some things that would break the pansy rules being selectively enforced, but I'll refrain and allow you to just enjoy your dishonest circle jerk without me.

There's no point in casting pearls before .......

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Not really.
And this about far more than just GPS coordinates.

Please tell.

Every GPS device I have ever used has a tracking function that records your tracks without needing to make specific waypoints.

There's no need to mark the houses to ensure the individual does his route.

Did you see the little factoid that the discrete individual data will not be available to those outside the census for 72 years?

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Funny to see such concern coming from someone who was so comfortable with all the domestic spying and snooping the Bush admin was up to.

Please do not mis-represent my position.
I always made it very clear that I only supported wire tapping when one caller was outside the country (thus not domestic) and a known terrorist.

You didn't mind the secrecy that made making sure those were the only calls tapped impossible?
A massive spy apparatus with no proper checks or safe guards worries me, a great deal as a matter of fact.

Census data? Not so much.
I would imagine more accurate mapping data would be valuable for better districting.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Please do not mis-represent my position.
I always made it very clear that I only supported wire tapping when one caller was outside the country (thus not domestic) and a known terrorist.

Which, without a warrant, was still be a flagrant violation of federal law.

Just so we're clear here.

If you believe so, then it should be clear evidence to you that a law on how census collected data is to be used won't stop it from being used that way if any particular administration wants to. It's much harder to illegally use data that just doesn't exist.

resedit wrote:

If you believe so, then it should be clear evidence to you that a law on how census collected data is to be used won't stop it from being used that way if any particular administration wants to. It's much harder to illegally use data that just doesn't exist.

The data does exist.  In fact, much, much more detailed information exists than is ever collected for the census.

So you think that the census should count people, but not identify where people are?