The government can only do what the constitution says it can. The constitution is not a list of rights that citizens have, but a list of powers that the government has. Therefore, there is a constitutional right to privacy unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Oh, fuck off. I damn well expect the government to not listen to my communications. And say, "Well, it would be pretty easy to listen to your conversation!" doesn't mean that it's moral to do so. My conversation is between me and the person I'm talking to. It's not public just because it's transmitted in the clear, and people like you with a such a privacy-hostile mentality are the cause of things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, and warrantless wiretapping in general.

Not if We The People say that that is not okay and punish the government if it does such things. We can place any limitation upon the government that we want.

Whereas I was saying that while people may be able to see you, you still have privacy even on a public road.

There is no straw man here. Other comments have already pointed out that a lot of the information it's supposed to send is, in fact, identifying. It would not be at all surprising to see the government working with corporations to collect as much data about people as possible, as they've already done a number of times. There are tracking concerns as long as it's sending data around.

Much like your drivel. I see no reason to trust the government; history simply does not provide one. Just about every single time we let the government play with our information, we find out it's using it to violate people's privacy and abuse them.

None. In order to get me to accept driverless cars, the software must be free software, the hardware must be open, there must be no backdoors, and they must be able to drive without sending information to some server somewhere. In other words, no tracking garbage.

I don't see why that's the most likely explanation, and also don't see why that would justify this disgusting treatment even if it were true. I really see no reason to give authority figures the benefit of the doubt; it's wasted on them.

A lot of parents are irrational morons with no respect for the constitution or individual liberties. Nevermind that this country was founded on a distrust of government or that it's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Then again, I don't think this applies just to parents.

As far as I know, it's just something used for emphasis, and isn't being put forth as an actual argument. "childish" and "nonsensical" are completely subjective descriptions in this case. Period.

Sure I can. Screwing up people's lives is immoral, and they definitely can be blamed for taking actions which do exactly that, regardless of any societal pressure being put on them.

Nope. I just stated facts. I actually agree with what you said, but I do think that people need to stop referring to government powers as "rights."

Governments have powers, not rights, so this sentence is correct. Whether or not they have the legitimate authority to regulate the Internet is determined by our laws, which can change.

Never heard of lesbians? Never heard of asexuals? Never heard of people who just like certain aesthetics?

Again, nonsense. License plate readers are 100% different from simply writing down license plates. Here are some fundamental differences:
1) They're more accurate.
2) They can be nearly omnipresent; just install them everywhere.
3) They cost less than paying lots of people to write down license plates.
4) They can all send the information to a central source far more easily than a human could.

So yeah, you're an imbecile.

Some privacy exists even in public places. People need privacy from mass government surveillance, and bootlickers such as yourself need to stop pretending that this is the same as someone just writing down license plates. All you're doing is making it easier for the government to selectively oppress its targets, which can range anywhere from civil rights leaders (such as when they spied on MLK) to people who make jokes about the government to people who criticize it.

No, We The People pay them and give them their powers in the first place. The government does not have rights; it has powers, and those powers can be revoked.

Straw man. I distrust the government with this data because of the hundreds of millions of cases of government abuses of power throughout history. The idea that the government can be trusted with mass surveillance technologically is an idea that can only be put forth by ignorant morons and those who want to oppress others with the information to begin with. I've thought it through, and I've come to the conclusion (much like with the NSA's mass surveillance) that this violates privacy rights and is too easily abused; that is not debatable.

As I've said before: Good. Following procedure is far more important than catching criminals. I'd rather many guilty people go free than have one innocent be convicted.

You'll find that I'm not a fan of one-size-fits-all solutions like that. Look, if it works for you, go ahead. Then again, this sort of thing is exactly why I encourage homeschooling; no one-size-fits-all nonsense forced on your by others. See, I've had this discussion so many times and heard all the arguments that it's just pointless. People just assume I'm saying you should never memorize anything ever, but that is not the case.

Or somehow abuse the commerce clause in ways that were never intended... again.

Since no-fly lists subvert due process, they cannot be allowed, regardless of their efficacy.

We're supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Free and brave people wouldn't sacrifice the constitution and fundamental liberties for safety.

With a ridiculous number of years of historical evidence to back them up. People with power will abuse it. People with a massive amount of power that they're allowed to use in secret will abuse it with an even greater frequency. That's a simple historical fact.

How so? They'd probably oppose it on constitutional grounds and on the fact that it subverts due process. Or do I not understand how libertarians supposedly think...?