How is this connecting people’s ID to their IP address when this does not involve anything to do with people’s ID?
How did you manage to not only not read the article, but also fail to read the second highest top-level comment which points out exactly this?
This, by the way, is exactly why I think the comment I reply to should not have been made: it’s contributing baseless suspicion and cynicism, and when other people read it, it arouses their suspicion, but without any remnant of whatever tenuousness may have been possessed by the original commenter. You aren’t saying “I have a suspicion” you are saying “this is connecting…” as if you know it. But you don’t know it - you haven’t even read about what you’re talking about.
Making the parents sign the disclaimer introduces a database that these politicians and lower level government officials have access to. This is a lawyerly and run around doing the same thing while still having deniability to be shitty with anybody taking issue with it, which is you. You either trust politicians, or are being dishonest here.
What database are you talking about? The database of Google accounts? That already exists. Government officials don’t (as far as we know) have access to it, and in any case that is not something this would change. Right?
Can you be specific about what new information (or access) this bill would introduce? The only thing the article or from my (non-exhaustive) reading of the bill introduces is that accounts would now have to have age bracket information in addition to the information they already have. How will that allow anything nefarious or harmful?
First of all, the information data Brokers collect which includes Google is sold to government agencies that use it without warrant or judicial supervision.
Second of all, this is locking down the internet. Make no mistake, it is a worldwide phenomenon, California is trying to be sneaky to fool the dumb shits that do not know what is going on. I am sure they have plenty of dumbasses and influence agents and trolls too push their point of view online as well to fool said dumb shits.
First of all, the information data Brokers collect which includes Google is sold to government agencies that use it without warrant or judicial supervision.
If you believe that, then why do you believe this bill will make the situation any worse?
This is a question I already asked but which you didn’t answer.
Because the state government would collect the information about which person where signed the disclaimer about not letting kids do whatever and would have that connection between IP addresses and names and everything else they have done. This is not hard to understand.
California is doing what Europe is doing in a sneaky way trying to rat fuck privacy.
The words “disclaimer”, “waiver” and “sign” do not occur in the bill. Whatever process you think exists does not, because, again, you haven’t bothered to understand what the bill is about. It’s not getting anyone to sign any disclaimer, so that information, whatever it might be, cannot be newly collected.
If you disagree, you need identify - preferably by referencing the actual clauses of the bill that I linked above - what new thing the bill introduces, and what harm that is likely to lead to.
The state is collecting a database of which names are which IP addresses that they can use to identify anything anyone has said at any time in coordination with the dad Brokers they can easily buy information from. You are giving me the lawyerly pr bs well ignoring the real purpose here. We both know it. Or I hope we both know it cuz otherwise you are not very observant.
How is this connecting people’s ID to their IP address when this does not involve anything to do with people’s ID?
How did you manage to not only not read the article, but also fail to read the second highest top-level comment which points out exactly this?
This, by the way, is exactly why I think the comment I reply to should not have been made: it’s contributing baseless suspicion and cynicism, and when other people read it, it arouses their suspicion, but without any remnant of whatever tenuousness may have been possessed by the original commenter. You aren’t saying “I have a suspicion” you are saying “this is connecting…” as if you know it. But you don’t know it - you haven’t even read about what you’re talking about.
Making the parents sign the disclaimer introduces a database that these politicians and lower level government officials have access to. This is a lawyerly and run around doing the same thing while still having deniability to be shitty with anybody taking issue with it, which is you. You either trust politicians, or are being dishonest here.
What database are you talking about? The database of Google accounts? That already exists. Government officials don’t (as far as we know) have access to it, and in any case that is not something this would change. Right?
Can you be specific about what new information (or access) this bill would introduce? The only thing the article or from my (non-exhaustive) reading of the bill introduces is that accounts would now have to have age bracket information in addition to the information they already have. How will that allow anything nefarious or harmful?
First of all, the information data Brokers collect which includes Google is sold to government agencies that use it without warrant or judicial supervision.
Second of all, this is locking down the internet. Make no mistake, it is a worldwide phenomenon, California is trying to be sneaky to fool the dumb shits that do not know what is going on. I am sure they have plenty of dumbasses and influence agents and trolls too push their point of view online as well to fool said dumb shits.
Those of us in reality know better though.
If you believe that, then why do you believe this bill will make the situation any worse?
This is a question I already asked but which you didn’t answer.
Because the state government would collect the information about which person where signed the disclaimer about not letting kids do whatever and would have that connection between IP addresses and names and everything else they have done. This is not hard to understand.
California is doing what Europe is doing in a sneaky way trying to rat fuck privacy.
The words “disclaimer”, “waiver” and “sign” do not occur in the bill. Whatever process you think exists does not, because, again, you haven’t bothered to understand what the bill is about. It’s not getting anyone to sign any disclaimer, so that information, whatever it might be, cannot be newly collected.
If you disagree, you need identify - preferably by referencing the actual clauses of the bill that I linked above - what new thing the bill introduces, and what harm that is likely to lead to.
The state is collecting a database of which names are which IP addresses that they can use to identify anything anyone has said at any time in coordination with the dad Brokers they can easily buy information from. You are giving me the lawyerly pr bs well ignoring the real purpose here. We both know it. Or I hope we both know it cuz otherwise you are not very observant.
Why do you believe this?
I am trying to get you to do the bare fucking minimum to convince me that what you fear has anything to do with this article.