3 ms·

> 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 poin

> 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.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      No worries buddy. I'm on here for for intelligent in-depth discussions. I tried my best to have one with you but if you can't articulate your points clearly and lack knowledge of the subject matter being discussed, that attempt was doomed from the start. My mistake, I should have known better from your first reply.

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.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    No worries buddy. I'm on here for for intelligent in-depth discussions. I tried my best to have one with you but if you can't articulate your points clearly and lack knowledge of the subject matter being discussed, that attempt was doomed from the start. My mistake, I should have known better from your first reply.