So long as the people who make these part of the "Law" and yet are never subject to it themselves, nothing will change. The day they see their children or loved ones or themselves get cancer or suffer to a state mandated molestation, or even if they simply have to take off their shoes and catch a foot fungus, that's the day when this crap will stop. Until then, who cares... this will always be so, and incremental, meaningless studies will be done to give the impression that the people who purport to represent us, "care". Sorry to sound jaded, but the current Executive, Legislative and Judiciary are the worst ever.

Non-Americans don't matter... unless they are Israeli. Both candidates know they can trash talk the entire world for political points... to demonstrate how "tough" they are.

And for reasons I don't understand, they will both want to curry favor with the Israelis - for what reason, I don't quite know. (I mean I do understand how a boogey man is needed to keep the Arabs in line but why is the US such a fop in front of the Israelis? I don't understand why we must take such scorn in the rest of the world for a bully regime like Israel?).

Anyhow, non-Americans don't vote here and therefore can be denigrated with impunity. We are #1, go USA! Fake bravado, jingoisms, you'll hear it from both of them. Real serious concerns about how the Chinese are rich and growing stronger, the trouble-making by the Russians, the increasingly mistrustful allies who are growing fewer everyday (in private if not in public), the drain on our economy by the huge military expenditure... I doubt these will be discussed. I hope I am wrong.

And the sad fact is that this is being discussed now but has been going on unfettered for a while:

http://www.parkingtoday.com/articledetails.php?id=788

If this is such an important tool (and I can see that part of the argument as well), why did the people who are responsible for instituting this into law enforcement not put in proper checks and balances?

If governments had shown good balance and restraint in favor of the people, the use of this would engender trust among all. Yet, the covert way in which this crept into many different venues of life implies that accountability to the public was never really high on the list for the legislators (who did not do their job in writing checks and balances) and much less for the elected officials who signed off on the payments for this system without asking the same questions*. Yet, writing checks and balances into Law, being open and transparent can be done today. Yet, where do we find anyone in a position (of power) who benefits from this stuff, to be honorable enough to bring balance here?

* I realize most of the public won't even understand what is happening here but the fact remains that a true servant of the public good would look out for them even when no one notices or cares. Good policy, open governance is good regardless of applaud.

Very sad to see that the world's largest democracy could in fact be the 'largest censored democracy'.

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?

Understand where your money goes - vote with your bucks because that is the only language, religion, force... whatever you and they believe in. I know, I know, we can't stop buying because we really don't have a choice and the system is rigged. However, consider that the moment you refuse to buy from just one company, or make a run on one Bank (by individuals withdrawing their monies, no matter how big or small), that is the moment that will define the 99% Movement as real. Until people say otherwise yet keep their monies and their sales flowing to the same 1%, nothing changes, therefore, they the 1% are not bothered.

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.

Great example! Additionally, I would add that this model of "protecting the people" is very selectively applied. Consider Somalia, war, famine, pirates, lawlessness, etc. yet, how come there is no one to "protect the Somali People". Or how about China, they too have a lot of issues where their people need protection... or India 'the largest democracy' where people right now on hunger strike to protest against corruption are being killed?

That is a "Trusted Shopping Associate" - if only people registered then they could opt-out you see. oh wait.

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".

Great point!! FarceBook does facilitate this kind of abuse and it is the "so-called authorities" who are now okay with equating suspicion as incriminating evidence and applying summary "justice" to the (unverified) offenders. My question: What good is it to create a list that is bogus and based on hearsay? The country/company end up getting bad publicity, the people on the list get offended (worse a real person with the same name may get harassed or worse) and FarceBook gets free publicity.

Why is is that no one ever asks to stop all this random "security"? If a person has committed a crime, arrest them and let due process (trial) take its course. If a person is to be harassed on suspicion, then that is no law enforcement or security or anything but a simple power grab.

I'm not sure I follow your responses to my objections. When I can get a book, a real book, without having to worry about DRM or other such nonsense, why would I get into "is this a DRM or non-DRM" argument? Regular eBooks or not, this is an inherent limitation that is arbitrarily chosen and should not become the accepted norm for people in the developing or developed or any world. Let us not bind them or us or anyone in chains behind this "only for DRM" argument. I counter the original author that while he may have had good intentions, he is mistaken in fostering something that is inherently damaging to the larger public interest. Second, once they have your (or my) money, their 'promises' don't mean squat. They could change their policy in a heartbeat and there is nothing to stop them from doing that. On the other hand, a book that has been purchased in exchange for money has no such promise or a need for it. I may be an old timer here, but I'm sure you see that when a corporation has to promise not to take away something that you already paid for, that's a problem for all of us. If the corporation (and not just Amazon) were so trustworthy, why did they do it in the first place? why did they not err in favor of their customer?

I find it interesting that the Kindle is seen as this great magical device for the developing world, when it in fact: 1. Limits the ability to share a book 2. Has a way to delete the entire book without recourse. Why would anyone want such a device in the developed world? Why would they not resist such a device in a developing world? Me thinks this is just kindle product placement.