Precisely five minutes ago, while reading a few Slashdot comments, I expelled flatulence out of my very own anus. I didn't expel flatulence out of someone else's anus; I expelled it out of my own. That's what makes it truly astonishing!
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Shall I feast?
if you have such a kneejerk reaction
There was no kneejerk reaction. Otherwise, anything dissent at all could be defined as one.
They all go hand in hand. It's because that's a dangerous amount of information for someone to have AND it's trivial to get once stored AND it'll probably just be rubber stamped anyway. Again, this is far, far different than just sending a cop over to search a specific location and hoping you find something.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, then I don't know what to say anymore.
Where exactly is the "ideal" level of power for a government and exactly why?
Haha. Even you couldn't give an exact answer. As for me? I don't need an exact answer; I simply look at what the government is doing at the time and decide for myself.
Then discuss the issue at hand.
Which I am, and I've decided that I don't care for them forcing businesses to store this data.
Or go campaign for the elimination of search warrants
No. Straw man. The problem is that they're store vast wealths of information that could easily be abused by a corrupt government (or even a corrupt individual working for the government). It's much, much different than them simply sending someone out to search a specific location (which requires money and time, and that makes it difficult to do so). Honestly, I can't understand why people would want to give the government access to all that information under any circumstances. I'm saying that they have more than enough power as it is.
But no, you'll just bitch going from status quo, fucking conservative nitwits and your fucking status quo worship.
What are you even referring to?
How is giving the government more power and more information a good thing? They have enough as it is! I don't want to ever, under any circumstances, give them access to this vast wealth of information just because you want to catch some "bad guys." Any judicial oversight will likely just be a rubber stamp, and looking at the actions of governments throughout history, even storing this data is a terrible idea.
Given that it's unnecessary to store people's data, I, on the other hand, do have a problem with it. The intentions of such laws are always to stop the "bad guys," and yet they always affect everyone. Everyone's data will be stored, requests for the data will likely be rubber stamped, and then they'll have loads of information about you. This is exactly why I applaud encryption, and it's highly likely that the "bad guys" will be using it anyway.
It's called a compromise
And sometimes compromise isn't acceptable. If the 2 year law was already in effect, and this law shortened the time that the information must be stored, then maybe I'd see the point (continually attack the law until nothing remains). But that's not what happened; this is just an entirely new law seeking to violate people's privacy and expand the government's power needlessly out of, again, irrational fear of criminals. When it comes to rights, this "compromise" simply isn't acceptable.
Well, you're bordering on the "nothing to hide" argument, so what's the point?
Yes, exactly. Only guilty people would argue against this law (just like people who argue against the TSA are terrorists). The government is entirely composed of perfect beings that are insusceptible to corruption and cannot make mistakes. What's the harm attempting to record everyone, innocent or not? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
These types of laws, which punish everyone be they innocent or guilty of something, are perfectly comparable to laws that state that you cannot murder innocents!