True - I hope I don't sound too paranoid, but I have often wondered if there are other forces in play who would be okay to have this collected for "marketing" purposes, until they need it for something else.
Tracking of credit transactions, web sites visited, shopping histories etc., they all represent a treasure trove for someone wanting to surreptitiously look at a person without having to go through the (already watered down) legal burden of proof.
My concern is that there is no parity here for the person whose information is being shared in secret. Can I even know who is see-ing or asking for my information? And can I stop particular people from getting it?
Excellent point. Wired Internet access is already tracked. Now let's ask the next question:
Who would benefit from being able to track people this way?
On a side note, what would happen if someone modified the MAC address of their laptop/AP etc.
In my humble opinion...
The IMF is the same old bunch of people who have been shunned around the world for the misery they bring to the common person in any country that they have helped themselves to.
Most recently, see how the South American/Latin American countries rejected them and their so-called austerity measures - the social sector cut backs that would have brought million into poverty and taken services away from those that needed them most, were averted simply because the governments in those countries did not believe the scare mongering from the IMF.
Today the IMF seeks a place for itself in a world that sees them for the scam they are and so now they are trying to "re-image" and "re-invent" their "role" in the world, trying to bait everyone and anyone so that they can start their games anew.
Panetta Says Defeat of Al Qaeda 'Within Reach'
If my employment depended on "defeat being close at hand for the enemy", I too would make such statements.
What I want to know is - will the drone attacks that fuel so much resentment and hatred now stop? Will the 600 nightly raids by the military/blackwater(xe) mercenaries end? Will the so-called War now need any less lives (both american and afghani)? Will the so-called War now need any less money? Will we finally stop supporting the Afghan drug lords?
If the answer is no, then there is no change and this is really just a PR stunt to pacify the american people who don't want to wage war and bring misery on innocent people in a far far away land while pumping up the troops. If violence is being used to justify that the enemy is close to be defeated then the cynical side of me says "this is not over by a long shot, keep the money bags rolling in".
Well put! In the midst of so many a big, systemic problems, we The People get so-called 'Greatest Reform since the 1930s' that really is no reform at all. It is a little bit of window dressing, a little bit of icing of 'we'll get it done in the next round' and a ton of exactly the opposite of what should be happening.
Vested interests have so much clout and so little transparency and it is astonishing the ease with which people are led away from their own interest and worse, made to turn on each other. The easy answer is that the representatives of The People are getting paid off by lobbies but I think that the problem is much worse. When there is no real incentive for them to change, why would they? Where can the People turn to? Both sides are devoid of empathy to the silent public... and the public has no control. What gives?
Suddenly the words "don't retreat, reload", "Kill him" etc. have such a heavy weight to them. What a senseless act, one cannot help but think that such vitrol and caustic rhetoric had some part to do with this heinous act. But who will bring the shock jocks, demagogues to justice? Who will take them to task and not let them hide behind "free speech" specious arguments?
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky