If so, should they refuse to serve them to certain people, like children or alcoholics?
Then the answer is yes, the reason the person could just get the shit themselves so what difference does it make if a robot gets it for them?
I think it's deeply sick that our government or anyone would equate our foreign, Congressionally declared, military enemies locked in nearly unrestrained warfare with the private effects and papers and their electronic equiavlents of it's peaceful citizens.
As do I, yet our government has proven over many decades it's inability to not overreach, many times has it been caught red handed in the cookie jar.
If you want to believe they can be trusted then good on you, however I don't trust them as far as I could throw them.
If terrorism is such the threat that every communication needs monitoring and archival why are good old fashioned letters not opened and scanned then sent on about their way, you know in case terrorists are using pen and paper to coordinate.
With your last two paragraphs I fully agree with.
The interesting thing is that people who think it is "clearly" unconstitutional seem to think things are innately or inherently constitutional or unconstitutional, ignoring incredible and fantastic complexities that already exist in interpretations of the Fourth Amendment, to say nothing of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
This is the exact reason when the document was written it was written in plain English.
For your quote there see the 10th Amendment.
To be clear I am not so much concerned with anyone collecting my metadata, I am concerned with someone having the ability to indiscriminately read an encrypted private communication between myself and a second party on a witch hunt for "reds under the bed".
This is the slippery slope. In fact tinfoilhat>this would go a good ways to why the gov didn't do away with ISIS when presented the opportunity.
People should wake up, the real terrorists are in Washington. We elected some of them, the rest were appointed.
I am glad to hear that if I had wads of cash that you completely are ok with my lobbying whomever in Washington for whatever purpose I wanted just because I had pockets deep enough.
Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Officials said the six terrorists who stormed the school in Peshawar were using cellphones registered to one woman who had no obvious connection to the attackers.
What? You mean something intended to curb or stop this altogether is known to not be effective? Then other than having the national database of fingerprints why do it? NVM answered my own question, to have a national database of fingerprints.
It's good to read that the rest of the world is as screwed as my country when it comes to citizens privacy.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
