4 ms·

That doesn't have any relevance to my point. Currently there is no infrastructure in place to secure people with clearance more than anyone else, so it's no sur

That doesn't have any relevance to my point. Currently there is no infrastructure in place to secure people with clearance more than anyone else, so it's no surprise their data is available. As for your second point, big shrug. All the data is already out there and isn't going away anytime soon. Best case is to protect future data from being leaked, but the US isn't going to outlaw data brokers anytime soon and holding companies with poor computer security practices to account is very recent.

23B1 3y ago
You are incorrect that there's no infra to secure people with clearances. WRT your second point, 'all the data is out there' is an awful argument. The solution is simple: if you want to do business with or in the United States, you must respect its citizens' rights. There's plenty of other comparable regulatory frameworks; food safety, weapons, etc.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > You are incorrect that there's no infra to secure people with clearances I'm not. If there was, their data wouldn't be lumped in with everyone else when it's leaked/hacked from all these large different organizations. > WRT your second point, 'all the data is out there' is an awful argument. It's a fact. You won't be able to remove that stuff now that it's out. IT's somewhat an instance of the Streisand effect. Numerous people have it torrented and downloaded locally. > The solution is simple: if you want to do business with or in the United States, you must respect its citizens' rights. That's not any kind of solution, especially when much of the issue is internal.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    > If there was, their data wouldn't be lumped in with everyone else You're giving the World's Largest And Most Ineffective Bureaucracy far too much agency. > You won't be able to remove that stuff now that it's out Who said it needs to be removed in order to secure these servicemembers' identities? > That's not any kind of solution It's the only solution that will work; to treat it as a constiutional mandate. It's one of the only ways to enforce widespread change when it comes to individual rights. Source: history.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > You're giving the World's Largest And Most Ineffective Bureaucracy far too much agency. Not really sure what you're saying here. I'll just reiterate my point. If there were any real measures in place to protect the data of specific individuals, their data wouldn't be winding up in hacked databases all over the web. > Who said it needs to be removed in order to secure these servicemembers' identities? That's what your previous comment seemed to imply. If that wasn't your point, what was your point? > It's the only solution that will work; to treat it as a constiutional mandate. Orrrr you could just have a privacy act like California, Europe and numerous other reasonable states have. It has nothing to do with the constitution or foreign trading in particular.
      - 23B1 3y ago
        > Not really sure what you're saying here. That's pretty clear, friendo. I can't do you thinking for you, but there's plenty of ways to mitigate risk and protect identities beyond deletion of the data. > Orrrr you could just have a privacy act like California We agree on this, except it should be at the federal level because privacy is a natural human right that should be enshrined in our most influential and powerful laws.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > That's pretty clear, friendo. I can't do you thinking for you Sigh. No need for your condescension. You're making poor points and defending them even worse. I'm asking you to be clearer and support your arguments. The problem isn't with me, but your lack of clear communication. So far, based on your replies and refusal to clarify and elaborate, the only reasonable conclusion is you don't really know what you're talking about.
        23B1 3y ago
        Very sorry to let you down.
        3y ago

23B1 3y ago

You are incorrect that there's no infra to secure people with clearances. WRT your second point, 'all the data is out there' is an awful argument. The solution is simple: if you want to do business with or in the United States, you must respect its citizens' rights. There's plenty of other comparable regulatory frameworks; food safety, weapons, etc.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> You are incorrect that there's no infra to secure people with clearances I'm not. If there was, their data wouldn't be lumped in with everyone else when it's leaked/hacked from all these large different organizations. > WRT your second point, 'all the data is out there' is an awful argument. It's a fact. You won't be able to remove that stuff now that it's out. IT's somewhat an instance of the Streisand effect. Numerous people have it torrented and downloaded locally. > The solution is simple: if you want to do business with or in the United States, you must respect its citizens' rights. That's not any kind of solution, especially when much of the issue is internal.
- 23B1 3y ago
  > If there was, their data wouldn't be lumped in with everyone else You're giving the World's Largest And Most Ineffective Bureaucracy far too much agency. > You won't be able to remove that stuff now that it's out Who said it needs to be removed in order to secure these servicemembers' identities? > That's not any kind of solution It's the only solution that will work; to treat it as a constiutional mandate. It's one of the only ways to enforce widespread change when it comes to individual rights. Source: history.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > You're giving the World's Largest And Most Ineffective Bureaucracy far too much agency. Not really sure what you're saying here. I'll just reiterate my point. If there were any real measures in place to protect the data of specific individuals, their data wouldn't be winding up in hacked databases all over the web. > Who said it needs to be removed in order to secure these servicemembers' identities? That's what your previous comment seemed to imply. If that wasn't your point, what was your point? > It's the only solution that will work; to treat it as a constiutional mandate. Orrrr you could just have a privacy act like California, Europe and numerous other reasonable states have. It has nothing to do with the constitution or foreign trading in particular.
    - 23B1 3y ago
      > Not really sure what you're saying here. That's pretty clear, friendo. I can't do you thinking for you, but there's plenty of ways to mitigate risk and protect identities beyond deletion of the data. > Orrrr you could just have a privacy act like California We agree on this, except it should be at the federal level because privacy is a natural human right that should be enshrined in our most influential and powerful laws.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > That's pretty clear, friendo. I can't do you thinking for you Sigh. No need for your condescension. You're making poor points and defending them even worse. I'm asking you to be clearer and support your arguments. The problem isn't with me, but your lack of clear communication. So far, based on your replies and refusal to clarify and elaborate, the only reasonable conclusion is you don't really know what you're talking about.
        23B1 3y ago
        Very sorry to let you down.
        3y ago