13 ms·

Someone buy this and cross reference it with publicly available information about Republican lawmakers. I'm certain you'll find more than a few pings.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
timintheglades 4y ago
kurupt213 4y ago
All uses of this information are bad; there isn’t an exception for alignment with your politics
- chomp 4y ago
  You are not a moral arbiter. Moralism is relative - some people will find it quite ethical to make sure that the people in power are being held to the same standard as their constituents. Especially when those people in power are removing autonomy from people. AND especially when those people in power can keep their autonomy by ensuring they can travel to blue states or overseas in case they need more freedom.
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    - elliekelly 4y ago
      You can’t murder a clump of cells. Otherwise the treatment for cancer or a yeast infection would result in a prison sentence.
      - throwawayacc2 4y ago
        I think this fundamental difference in morality is why your country will fall apart.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        The country functions with differences in morality. It has for the past 50 years. The only reason it would not work is if some people try to force their morals on others when the situation has nothing to do with them.
        kolanos 4y ago
        Which country do you live in where morality is so homogenized?
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Considering this data is dangerous to far more innocent women and abortion doctors than Republican lawmakers, it doesn't seem very wise to gloat about it.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      "Gloat?" More like "hold responsible."
      - robonerd 4y ago
        I get that you're looking for a silver lining to this, but what you've found is micron of silver in a metric ton of pig shit.
        Tostino 4y ago
        Do you think these lawmakers will care enough to attempt to stop this from happening going forward, if it doesn't affect them personally? I do not. They have shown an almost aggressive lack of empathy.
        robonerd 4y ago
        I don't know how republican lawmakers will react. But I think this information has the potential to hurt far more innocent people.
  - vinyl7 4y ago
    This is how the country will end up in a civil war. Tit for tat never ends
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      In contrast, appeasement always ends -- in failure.
    - thatguy0900 4y ago
      Are civil wars the fault of the people who hold politicians accountable? The tit for tat here only works if the politicians arw actually up to shady stuff. Thats the issue
      - throwawayacc2 4y ago
        The tit for tat exists because there is nothing left binding your country together. Do you not see there are now people with complete, diametrically opposed views on morality in your country? The exact same thing, one person will look at it and see murder and another see nothing wrong. One will see transexuals in kindergarten and say “how brave” other will see a nightmare horror. One looks at your very government and sees either the far left or the far right. Do you not see there is no such thing as the american people now? Why do you keep pretending you are a country when you are clearly not. Why do you want to live with the other in the same country? Why do you want to force them to live with you?
        toomuchtodo 4y ago
        > Why do you keep pretending you are a country when you are clearly not. Why do you want to live with the other in the same country? Why do you want to force them to live with you? I'm unsure what else the nation could do with these people. Ship them somewhere else? One side is waiting for the other side to attrition out (Pew Research Voter Demographics corpus). What other options are available? Who else would want them? The people who don't believe in the peaceful transfer of power and believe in subjugating the rights of others due to their own belief systems don't want to negotiate or compromise. How do you work with opposition who doesn't want progress, but only to make someone suffer? You cannot, so you lean into whatever will work. “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be." https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/tr... McConnell says he's '100 percent' focused on 'stopping' Biden's administration https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he-s-100-percent-focused-stopping-biden-s-n1266443 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he... "The GOP's no-compromise pledge" https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311 https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromis... "4 In 10 Republicans Say Political Violence May Be Necessary" https://www.npr.org/2021/02/11/966498544/a-scary-survey-finding-4-in-10-republicans-say-political-violence-may-be-necessa https://www.npr.org/2021/02/11/966498544/a-scary-survey-find... This started with Newt Gingrich decades ago: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gi... This was built by design. > “One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
- r00fus 4y ago
  Tolerance of intolerance is intolerable [1]. Blowback is expected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - emerged 4y ago
    Which is the tolerated here? Allowing abortions or not allowing abortions? Because obviously this phrase can be applied to both making it rather useless as a rationalization for either side. Downvote away, it’s unambiguously true.
    - throwawayacc2 4y ago
      For what is worth, I think you are making a correct observation. Another correct observation would be this. Aimed at the people saying this is breaking with precedent and it’s settled law that shouldn’t be changed. The prohibition, which was written into the constitution, was repealed. Nothing is set in stone.
      - sofixa 4y ago
        Isn't there a difference between repealing a law by the legislature and the judiciary changing the meaning of existing laws?
    - fragmede 4y ago
      What’s intolerable is being against abortions while simulatenously making use of that service. There's something just too hypocritical about being against medical procedures while personally benefiting from them, be it anti-vaxxers who are fully vaccinated, or anti-abortion activists who want to prevent others from having access to abortions while quietly going a state over and having one for themselves or their wife/girlfriend/mistress/daughter. If you're against something, fine, but practice what you preach. This is especially true for those preaching very loudly.
      - ryandrake 4y ago
- function_seven 4y ago
  Disagree. The exception is handy for getting laws passed, such as the VPPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act That law was a response to Robert Bork's video rental history being published during his confirmation hearings. For the issue at hand, I'm well in favor of subjecting our lawmakers to the privacy breaches we all should be protected from. No better way to get them to act.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    What's funny about the VPPA is that it's so narrow in scope, to the point where it must have been deliberately so. It's not like people were unaware in the late 80s of where the information economy would lead. Of course nothing like "ad tech" existed back then, but the fact that only a specific type of product purchase/rental was covered suggests that the law was never intended to actually protect consumers.
  - quantified 4y ago
    That was classic. Better we don’t care what you watch in the first place, though that won’t happen anytime soon.
- kabdib 4y ago
  Maybe. But to get it to stop, you have to make politicians care more about the actual humanitarian issues than the money they get from special interests.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > All uses of this information are bad... If you believe that, using it on lawmakers is probably the absolute fastest, most effective, and best targeted way to limit the damage that can be done.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  The moral use of this information is to abuse it in a legal way that gets data brokers regulated to prevent future abuse.
- nameless912 4y ago
  I didn't say this was good, I'm merely pointing out that this is an inevitability^H^H^Hpossibility now that the data is available. No moral judgement provided.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Waiting for an attacker to relent out of shame is a poor defensive strategy.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  "We allowed the Republicans to destroy everything, but at least we have the moral high ground."
dfxm12 4y ago
No need. You'll also find their donors on the list. Pointing out how the rules don't apply to these guys isn't really new or interesting. When was the last time a member of the GOP lost their seat because of acting against one of the party's supposed tenants of family values, small government, liberty, etc.? Their voters simply don't care.
truxs 4y ago
John Oliver actually bought information from data broker to see if they could identify members of congress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA
quantified 4y ago
Or their spiritual leaders.
macspoofing 4y ago
Great example of why this is so dangerous, there are people like you who are willing to exploit this data for political purposes. In this case, this is planned parenthood attendance, but it could very well have been a political rally for your political opponents, that you could then use to get them fired.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

timintheglades 4y ago

kurupt213 4y ago

All uses of this information are bad; there isn’t an exception for alignment with your politics

chomp 4y ago
You are not a moral arbiter. Moralism is relative - some people will find it quite ethical to make sure that the people in power are being held to the same standard as their constituents. Especially when those people in power are removing autonomy from people. AND especially when those people in power can keep their autonomy by ensuring they can travel to blue states or overseas in case they need more freedom.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    You can’t murder a clump of cells. Otherwise the treatment for cancer or a yeast infection would result in a prison sentence.
    - throwawayacc2 4y ago
      I think this fundamental difference in morality is why your country will fall apart.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        The country functions with differences in morality. It has for the past 50 years. The only reason it would not work is if some people try to force their morals on others when the situation has nothing to do with them.
      - kolanos 4y ago
        Which country do you live in where morality is so homogenized?
- robonerd 4y ago
  Considering this data is dangerous to far more innocent women and abortion doctors than Republican lawmakers, it doesn't seem very wise to gloat about it.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    "Gloat?" More like "hold responsible."
    - robonerd 4y ago
      I get that you're looking for a silver lining to this, but what you've found is micron of silver in a metric ton of pig shit.
      - Tostino 4y ago
        Do you think these lawmakers will care enough to attempt to stop this from happening going forward, if it doesn't affect them personally? I do not. They have shown an almost aggressive lack of empathy.
        robonerd 4y ago
        I don't know how republican lawmakers will react. But I think this information has the potential to hurt far more innocent people.
- vinyl7 4y ago
  This is how the country will end up in a civil war. Tit for tat never ends
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    In contrast, appeasement always ends -- in failure.
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    Are civil wars the fault of the people who hold politicians accountable? The tit for tat here only works if the politicians arw actually up to shady stuff. Thats the issue
    - throwawayacc2 4y ago
      The tit for tat exists because there is nothing left binding your country together. Do you not see there are now people with complete, diametrically opposed views on morality in your country? The exact same thing, one person will look at it and see murder and another see nothing wrong. One will see transexuals in kindergarten and say “how brave” other will see a nightmare horror. One looks at your very government and sees either the far left or the far right. Do you not see there is no such thing as the american people now? Why do you keep pretending you are a country when you are clearly not. Why do you want to live with the other in the same country? Why do you want to force them to live with you?
      - toomuchtodo 4y ago
        > Why do you keep pretending you are a country when you are clearly not. Why do you want to live with the other in the same country? Why do you want to force them to live with you? I'm unsure what else the nation could do with these people. Ship them somewhere else? One side is waiting for the other side to attrition out (Pew Research Voter Demographics corpus). What other options are available? Who else would want them? The people who don't believe in the peaceful transfer of power and believe in subjugating the rights of others due to their own belief systems don't want to negotiate or compromise. How do you work with opposition who doesn't want progress, but only to make someone suffer? You cannot, so you lean into whatever will work. “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be." https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/tr... McConnell says he's '100 percent' focused on 'stopping' Biden's administration https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he-s-100-percent-focused-stopping-biden-s-n1266443 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he... "The GOP's no-compromise pledge" https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311 https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromis... "4 In 10 Republicans Say Political Violence May Be Necessary" https://www.npr.org/2021/02/11/966498544/a-scary-survey-finding-4-in-10-republicans-say-political-violence-may-be-necessa https://www.npr.org/2021/02/11/966498544/a-scary-survey-find... This started with Newt Gingrich decades ago: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gi... This was built by design. > “One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
r00fus 4y ago
Tolerance of intolerance is intolerable [1]. Blowback is expected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- emerged 4y ago
  Which is the tolerated here? Allowing abortions or not allowing abortions? Because obviously this phrase can be applied to both making it rather useless as a rationalization for either side. Downvote away, it’s unambiguously true.
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    For what is worth, I think you are making a correct observation. Another correct observation would be this. Aimed at the people saying this is breaking with precedent and it’s settled law that shouldn’t be changed. The prohibition, which was written into the constitution, was repealed. Nothing is set in stone.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      Isn't there a difference between repealing a law by the legislature and the judiciary changing the meaning of existing laws?
  - fragmede 4y ago
    What’s intolerable is being against abortions while simulatenously making use of that service. There's something just too hypocritical about being against medical procedures while personally benefiting from them, be it anti-vaxxers who are fully vaccinated, or anti-abortion activists who want to prevent others from having access to abortions while quietly going a state over and having one for themselves or their wife/girlfriend/mistress/daughter. If you're against something, fine, but practice what you preach. This is especially true for those preaching very loudly.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
function_seven 4y ago
Disagree. The exception is handy for getting laws passed, such as the VPPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act That law was a response to Robert Bork's video rental history being published during his confirmation hearings. For the issue at hand, I'm well in favor of subjecting our lawmakers to the privacy breaches we all should be protected from. No better way to get them to act.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  What's funny about the VPPA is that it's so narrow in scope, to the point where it must have been deliberately so. It's not like people were unaware in the late 80s of where the information economy would lead. Of course nothing like "ad tech" existed back then, but the fact that only a specific type of product purchase/rental was covered suggests that the law was never intended to actually protect consumers.
- quantified 4y ago
  That was classic. Better we don’t care what you watch in the first place, though that won’t happen anytime soon.
kabdib 4y ago
Maybe. But to get it to stop, you have to make politicians care more about the actual humanitarian issues than the money they get from special interests.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> All uses of this information are bad... If you believe that, using it on lawmakers is probably the absolute fastest, most effective, and best targeted way to limit the damage that can be done.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
The moral use of this information is to abuse it in a legal way that gets data brokers regulated to prevent future abuse.
nameless912 4y ago
I didn't say this was good, I'm merely pointing out that this is an inevitability^H^H^Hpossibility now that the data is available. No moral judgement provided.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Waiting for an attacker to relent out of shame is a poor defensive strategy.
TomSwirly 4y ago
"We allowed the Republicans to destroy everything, but at least we have the moral high ground."

dfxm12 4y ago

No need. You'll also find their donors on the list. Pointing out how the rules don't apply to these guys isn't really new or interesting. When was the last time a member of the GOP lost their seat because of acting against one of the party's supposed tenants of family values, small government, liberty, etc.? Their voters simply don't care.

truxs 4y ago

John Oliver actually bought information from data broker to see if they could identify members of congress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA

quantified 4y ago

Or their spiritual leaders.

macspoofing 4y ago

Great example of why this is so dangerous, there are people like you who are willing to exploit this data for political purposes. In this case, this is planned parenthood attendance, but it could very well have been a political rally for your political opponents, that you could then use to get them fired.