4 ms·

Dude, what are you smoking? I'm talking DNA data collected by Ancestry. I'm thinking behavioral data ala Tik Tok. Not sure what the US Dept of State has to do w

Dude, what are you smoking? I'm talking DNA data collected by Ancestry. I'm thinking behavioral data ala Tik Tok. Not sure what the US Dept of State has to do with this, especially since 99% of their mission is overseas engagement as opposed to domestic. If you're referring to collection on foreign citizens, well no joy to be had with the FTC. Lobby your foreign government to engage with USGOV on treaty obligations that sync privacy... shouldn't take more than 30 years to get that done.

mistrial9 4y ago
* The FTC is the US Federal Agency here, edit, my armchair error * FTC rules review will discuss ... more reading on the agenda here * a post (above) claims that this is a "national security issue" as in, bad foreign agents might track citizens here * But wait, actual national security is held in trust with the Federal Government, and has provably failed to protect itself against serious compromise, as mentioned in my reply * But wait again, US citizens are getting no reprieve in being relentlessly tracked for "ads" while some claim there is a national security issue so it is important that we engage in this feedback * Where is the accountability in Federal Government for real, actual National Security? and why are citizens being tracked doing daily things, in the first place? no "dude"
- hedora 4y ago
  FCC != FTC. Also, the government is not a monolith. In particular, note that they're targeting commercial surveillance, and the biggest surveillance companies on earth have ties to other parts of the executive branch.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
  Dude... you are conflating the national security risks from foreign actors accessing US citizen privacy data, with your concern about the risks of domestic surveillance. Your comment is off-topic to mine and therefore whiney and immature. > actual national security is held in trust with the Federal Government, and has provably failed to protect itself against serious compromise, as mentioned in my reply Nat Sec folks have to be right all the time (impossible). Threats only have to get it right once. There have been failures and there will be more. If you think not hearing about successes means they aren't commonplace, then too bad for you that you never worked in Nat Sec or held a clearance. A lot of bad people have been taken off the playing field by USGOV and more will follow. But keep judging something you have no personal experience with.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    exactly - apologist for security state; anyone who criticizes "must be high" .. I could smell it; thx for the direct confirmation no "dude"

mistrial9 4y ago

* The FTC is the US Federal Agency here, edit, my armchair error * FTC rules review will discuss ... more reading on the agenda here * a post (above) claims that this is a "national security issue" as in, bad foreign agents might track citizens here * But wait, actual national security is held in trust with the Federal Government, and has provably failed to protect itself against serious compromise, as mentioned in my reply * But wait again, US citizens are getting no reprieve in being relentlessly tracked for "ads" while some claim there is a national security issue so it is important that we engage in this feedback * Where is the accountability in Federal Government for real, actual National Security? and why are citizens being tracked doing daily things, in the first place? no "dude"

hedora 4y ago
FCC != FTC. Also, the government is not a monolith. In particular, note that they're targeting commercial surveillance, and the biggest surveillance companies on earth have ties to other parts of the executive branch.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
Dude... you are conflating the national security risks from foreign actors accessing US citizen privacy data, with your concern about the risks of domestic surveillance. Your comment is off-topic to mine and therefore whiney and immature. > actual national security is held in trust with the Federal Government, and has provably failed to protect itself against serious compromise, as mentioned in my reply Nat Sec folks have to be right all the time (impossible). Threats only have to get it right once. There have been failures and there will be more. If you think not hearing about successes means they aren't commonplace, then too bad for you that you never worked in Nat Sec or held a clearance. A lot of bad people have been taken off the playing field by USGOV and more will follow. But keep judging something you have no personal experience with.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  exactly - apologist for security state; anyone who criticizes "must be high" .. I could smell it; thx for the direct confirmation no "dude"