I would add another point. Even if they are not doing anything wrong with all of the data collected right now, there are dangers in having all of that data collected and collated. For instance they could be hacked, bought or raided by a government entity just to name a few possibilities. Google doesn't have to be evil in order for their data mining practices to have a negative impact on your life and the lives of millions. It's the same reason we limit governmental power, not necessarily because the administration of the moment are bad guys, just in case bad guys get in later and abuse governmental power to deprive the people of their freedoms. There are a lot of people out there that will use any edge they can get for money and power, to pretend otherwise is folly. Lessons of history and all that.

I hope you noticed that your attempt at using "Appeal to ridicule" to dismiss h00manist's comment by branding it "conspiracy theory nonsense" failed spectacularly. The days when you could simply invoke the dreaded "conspiracy theory" label are thankfully coming to an end, intelligent people rely on facts. When half a dozen companies with interlocking stock holders and board members control the majority of the media, it is not so ridiculous to postulate significant influence. It doesn't matter who you vote for if the media gets to choose the candidates.

The problem with your scenario is that is doesn't explain the need for the software. What they are seeking is the ability to fake 500 accounts at a time, how many secret agents would they need to require that kind of throughput? An analogy (sorry no car) is the difference between a web server that can handle 500 hits a day and one that can handle 500 hits simultaneously.

As the father of five, I completely disagree. My responsibility is not just to act as a paycheck, it is to do my best to make sure there is a decent world for my children to live in when they are out on their own. Sometimes that means interrupting the model suburbian lifestyle. It also has the benefit of teaching by example, a responsible adult doesn't always do what is convenient.

Psychics would be a better choice for screening. If genuine they can use their abilities to ferret out the bad guys. If as debunkers say they are simply reading people then they have lots of experience and are perfect for the job. Seems like a win win situation and it would be difficult for them to do much worse than the current SPOTters.

He swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Not to defend and protect the government. Whether his actions were correct is another matter, but the distinction of the oath is the crucial difference between tyranny and a free country.

How does this statement, "In a knowledge economy, programmers rank among our most valuable workers" have anything to do with the most important professions in civilization? If you conflate two very different concepts and then use it as an opportunity to bash programmers. That would seem to me at least to be trolling, instead it's insightful. Go figure.

'If you want to propose ideas you have to have a license to say that you are capable of forming coherent thoughts, your brain has to pass a test to show it is fit to operate your mouth properly and you have to have insurance.'

Although many people may think it is 1984, it is not. That was a long time ago, it is now 2010 and we are living in a brave new world. A world in which Community, Identity, Stability are the watch words. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. I think you will agree that this is a much better way than the old outdated morality of the past. It is better that one should suffer than that many should be corrupted. Unorthodoxy threatens more than the life of a mere individual; it strikes at Society itself. These are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant.