I live in Europe (non-EU) and can't wrap my head around the fact that selling PD is legal in the US.
U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
181–190 of 195 posts
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Europe has the Schengen area; I assume you're familiar?
Has Texas agreed to adopt the strictest gun control measures in the US sates? I assume you understand the question re: Schengen.
Schengen allows for border crossings with no checkpoints just like US states. Which means the "different states have different laws" canard is no different than Europe. What's to stop someone from leaving Switzerland or Czechia with a firearm until they get caught?
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
in most states someone who has multiple assault violations and a history of mental health problems can walk into a gun show with $700 and 15 minutes later walk out with a semi-automatic AR-15
That's not an assault rifle, first and foremost. Second, selling to someone with multiple assault convictions is itself a Federal felony, and not every gun owner is so careless as to want to take that risk and get pilloried in the press. You're generalizing a worst-case scenario based on a stereotype.
it's not a worst-case scenario, it's a very obvious loophole that should be closed — private gun purchases should require waiting times and background checks
"not technically an assault rifle" doesn't matter in the slightest, no one's impressed by this constant pedantry... yes, yes, it's an ArmaLite 15 and isn't technically an assault rifle because it's only semi-automatic. This changes absolutely nothing, mass shooters are essentially cosplaying during mass shootings with this thing because it looks like an assault rifle and it's easily accessible.
the proliferation of modern small arms is one of the worst things to happen in human history
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an assault rifle, first and foremost. Second, selling to someone with multiple assault convictions is itself a Federal felony, and not every gun owner is so careless as to want to take that risk and get pilloried in the press. You're generalizing a worst-case scenario based on a stereotype.
it's not a worst-case scenario, it's a very obvious loophole that should be closed — private gun purchases should require waiting times and background checks "not technically an assault rifle" doesn't matter in the slightest, no one's impressed by this constant pedantry... yes, yes, it's an ArmaLite 15 and isn't technically an assault rifle because it's only semi-automatic. This changes absolutely nothing, mass shoot…
You can't misrepresent important facts and then claim someone correcting you is engaging in pedantry. That's flat-out gaslighting.
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's not a worst-case scenario, it's a very obvious loophole that should be closed — private gun purchases should require waiting times and background checks "not technically an assault rifle" doesn't matter in the slightest, no one's impressed by this constant pedantry... yes, yes, it's an ArmaLite 15 and isn't technically an assault rifle because it's only semi-automatic. This changes absolutely nothing, mass shoot…
You can't misrepresent important facts and then claim someone correcting you is engaging in pedantry. That's flat-out gaslighting.
the facts being "looks like an assault rifle but isn't technically an assault rifle"? that's immaterial to the point, and it's clear you have no desire to engage in a good faith conversation, see ya
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't misrepresent important facts and then claim someone correcting you is engaging in pedantry. That's flat-out gaslighting.
the facts being "looks like an assault rifle but isn't technically an assault rifle"? that's immaterial to the point, and it's clear you have no desire to engage in a good faith conversation, see ya
Continue believing propaganda lies. You do you, boo.
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our nation allows private companies to SELL PII. Our nation utilizes the availability of said PII to build their own spying apparatus. Law Enforcement uses harvested location data to track people without any warrants or due process. You are ignoring huge parts of reality to be able to say those 2 points above.
And you are ignoring the many competing interests within and throughout the federal government. Source: me, with 20 years inside DOD/IC.
No I'm not. I'm telling someone they are ignoring all the bad things our government allows and benefits from. I'm not really sure what competing interests has to do with anything I said. Are "competing interests" the reason our own government is spying on us and tracking our lives in the secret? I'd love to understand what "competing interests" means in the context of what I said and what it has to do with the rights our government violates and answers to nobody over.
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a list of all CIA employees publicly available? You know, "spies" who are doing covert ops, dealing arms and drugs and destabalizing places to overthrow governments, assasinating people, etc. Do we know who those people are? If not, why would there be a list/memorial for them when KIA? The CIA isn't even the topic here though. There are people with this clerance working for all parts of the federal governmen…
Even the people who work in the most dangerous subsector of this line of work barely die violently, is the point of the memorial wall. You've listed a whole bunch of questions but the things you've proposed - the threat, its reality, the notion it actually affects someone, etc are entirely of your own making. The onus is on you to provide any evidence of them and there just doesn't seem to be any. I'm saying it's for…
> when you have access to privileged information that others are willing to kill, in extreme cases, to obtain
The key phrase in my original statement is _in extreme cases_ - I'm not saying such a thing is common or even likely, I'm saying when you have a bunch of tech contractors with TS access all over the place advertising to the world that they have such access, there's no way other places haven't used that info in an attempt to intimidate someone, bribe, or force, one of those contractors into helping them get into a system or get information out. If a contractor was able to yank and leak the Prism documents with the same access, working for the same firm as some of the people in the group I linked to, then it's a massive risk that these people are being looked into and attempts are being made to flip them somehow. Might not be by killing people, but who's to say for sure.
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant wireless range to control it, not fuel/battery range. You're assuming they intend to fly the drone across an ocean or something to hit a target. We don't fly predator drones across the ocean either, they are transported somewhere via other means, and then deployed to the area needed in a way they have the range to actually hit their target. Leaving something on a building rooftop and flying back home to later…
yes, but there's always some trail this way... travel logs, mailing logs, someone there to set it up, etc again, just easier to shoot someone... we don't need to make up imaginary drone violence, there's not much reason for it outside of a warzone
> yes, but there's always some trail this way... travel logs, mailing logs, someone there to set it up, etc
All meaningless if you don't fly and use only cash, and a fake ID
> again, just easier to shoot someone... we don't need to make up imaginary drone violence, there's not much reason for it outside of a warzone
I didn't think it was easier than shooting someone. All of this stems from me saying it's only a matter of time until a psycho mounts a gun onto a drone and flies it over a crowd. We have a mass shooting once a week. Tech is easier and more accessible and only continues to be easier and more available. If soldiers are taking off the shelf drones and using them to easily kill people on the cheap, it's only a matter of time until instead of a box of ammo and trench coat, someone throws on a dji vr headset and flies a drone with either a gun on it or a bomb.
It's not imaginary
> Just a few months ago, a head of state was attacked with off-the-shelf consumer drones — an apparent first. It happened in broad daylight on August 4 in Venezuela. According to police, the drones exploded and missed their target
https://www.defenseone.com/feature/against-the-drones/
> Armed men allegedly identified as members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) attacked the community of Pinolapa, in the municipality of Tepalcatepec, in the state of Michoacán, with drones loaded with explosives.
> residents of the area indicated that the drones were loaded with C4 explosives and fragmentation grenades
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/mexican-cartel-tactica...
https://www.politico.eu/article/future-warfare-400-army-stri...
It's illogical to think it won't happen at some point
Re: U.S. military members' personal data being sold by online brokers
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you are ignoring the many competing interests within and throughout the federal government. Source: me, with 20 years inside DOD/IC.
No I'm not. I'm telling someone they are ignoring all the bad things our government allows and benefits from. I'm not really sure what competing interests has to do with anything I said. Are "competing interests" the reason our own government is spying on us and tracking our lives in the secret? I'd love to understand what "competing interests" means in the context of what I said and what it has to do with the rights…
If you can't imagine that a bureaucracy as large as the united states government might not have competing interests within... I'm not sure I can help you.