register to State Department to abc islands

[cowboyneal]

You forgot one important little fact - for the Government to find out anything about you through the private records you cited, a warrant would be required. When you "register," you waive that important requirement as to your privacy with respect to your travel. When you truly understand the legalities, perhaps you'll be able to stop "laughing" and get to a place of understanding and knowledge...I can refer you to some constitutional treatises if you like so you can formulate a true understanding to intelligently discuss the issue...

...the ignorant are exactly those the government counts on to assist in the erosion of our constitutional liberties and protections by virtue of their propensity to "just follow the instructions."

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

I am far from ignorant, I'll happily demonstrtate this.

1. If my privacy was intact, I would never, EVER, have received a phone call from a telemarketer, NEVEr received anything I didn't order in the mail via USPS, NEVER recive what's known as 'Spam' in my e-mail, etc.

2. The most professional of data miners are highly likely to be working in private enterprise, trying to sell me something, rather than trying to get me to vote from them.

3. There are some things that outlast any regime. For example, Sen. Ted Kennedy. He's held office longer than heeads of juntas and self-proclaimed dictators for life. I have lived through many regimes here.

5. Anyone who takes an attude of 'anyone who does anything different from me must be wrong' truly demonstrtaes not only ignorance, but lack of will to learn why someone else does something different. The proverbial 'closed mind'.

6. I am fully aware of what I've done, and even more so, why I have done this. I have not 'fogotten' any thing - you are quite presumtious to assume so.

I deleted #4 - it came across a bit too strong.

Now maybe you understand my laughing - if you honestly have never

received junk mail

received unsolicited calls from telemarketers, ever, before or since the establishment of do not call lists

never received spam in your e-mail

then perhaps your privacy is intact. If any of those events have happened, your privacy is not. It has been bought, or sold, or bartered.

Perhaps we can market your secrets on how you never had any of these events occur, via infomercials, telemarketing, and Spam, and each buy an island if we split it 50/50?

 

[cowboyneal]

A little angry there, ne'st ce pas?

You apparently fail to understand (and continue to fail to understand) the difference between those intrusions to which you VOLUNTARILY open yourself by doing business (and sometimes by not checking the "don't contact me" box), and unwarranted governmental intrusion in your private affairs (for which you voluntarily open yourself when you "register").

Personally, I don't care what anyone else does, and certainly don't look at things in absolute terms of 'right' and 'wrong' in any respect (much unlike the present "regime" and other groups of big-mouthed, right wing lunatics) which to me is the ultimate in simple-mindedness and ignorance...perhaps you should focus less on "proving you're right" (double entendre intended) and understand that there may be other points of view worthy of discussion...

I didn't know that Ted Kennedy wasn't required to run for re-election...interesting how he accomplished that...

The rest of it (and anything further) I'll just ignore...until you catch up...

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

No, not angry, it's just when someone is as inaccurate in their assessment of another person as you have chosen to be of me, it should be corrected. However, your posts have contained an accusatory tone throughout this thread. It seemed you especially took issue with me merely stating I wasn't participating in any activities that I wouldn't want to be disclosed. And, you can read here in the electrons how I have never personalized my rebuttals to your inaccurate assessments of me.

If you'll look, I've pointed out Ted Kennedy stayed in office throughout many regimes - I'd challenge you to copy my post into yours and highlight where I posted he did not have to run for re-election.

I'm leaving for travel, so I'll leave you with this.

If you honestly didn't care, why the posts? This is as incongruent as assuming businessess who don't need your permission to violate your privacy are any less of a concern than a government who does. I never had given any telemarketers permission to call me before the 'do not call' lists were established, yes, even before the Internet was widespread and such boxes were on a screen. For instance, one bank has sent us over 26 offers for their credit card in the USPS in the past year, when we in fact have never done business with this bank - they just like our credit rating (and yes we subscribe to the mail preference service as well). So, another inaccurate assessment of me you have chosen.

I have never spent energy trying to prove I'm 'right' - you'll see all I've done is refute your attempts to categorize me as 'wrong', and I've never categorized anyone as 'wrong' - simply inaccurate.

But, here's the real test. I can say my posts have been based on personal, first-hand factual experience with using this system. Can you say the same?

Adios.

 

[deeper thoughts]

To the original poster thanks for this information .
To each his own.

 

[TxHockeyGuy]

I'm with cowboyneal on this one. The government already has way too much data on its citizens as is. Most people have the attitude of "I have nothing to hide" so they allow such intrusions. That is why we have a national ID quickly coming which will be required for basically everything and allow them to quite nicely track and gather more information. We've already lost many civil liberties over time but most don't notice it because it has been done slowly. People have become apathetic and are trading their civil liberties for a false sense of security.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin