TexasCHLforum.com

sheary wrote:

imkopaka wrote:I used to live in King County. My family still does. I'm not pleased. You'll note the article said the county was PAYING the company that manages the data.

I don't see the problem as long as they're collecting more from scofflaws in license fees and fines than they're spending on enforcement.

I guess you don't have a dog in the fight so to speak?

I want to apologize for my implication earlier in this thread that someone may have once lived in California. I can understand how such an implication could be offensive.

RogueUSMC wrote:

sheary wrote:

imkopaka wrote:I used to live in King County. My family still does. I'm not pleased. You'll note the article said the county was PAYING the company that manages the data.

I don't see the problem as long as they're collecting more from scofflaws in license fees and fines than they're spending on enforcement.

I guess you don't have a dog in the fight so to speak?

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but wouldn't that make him more objective about the situtation?

maybe so but...lol.

I don't understand how someone can be ok with a government entity collecting information on citizens without their knowledge or approval for the simple fact that said information will not result in a fine on you personally...

It's like consenting to a search of your vehicle at the whim of a random officer because "you have nothing to hide"...

Maybe, some of this "big brother" nonsense will be addressed and done away with in the coming years.

One can hope with some Conservatives in the drivers seat, so to speak...

Did they think the store gives discounts to loyalty card members out of the goodness of their hearts?

The company does it to gather data and, more importantly, to monetize that data. Nobody is required to get a card and take the discount. It's simple to pay full price in cash if you value privacy. However, when somebody signs up for a card, and voluntarily gives their REAL NAME ETC., they sound really silly complaining about their privacy. Read the fine print, people.


Exhibit A: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... r-did.html

I understand that, but the issue is with tax dollars spent purchasing said data...

RogueUSMC wrote:I understand that, but the issue is with tax dollars spent purchasing said data...

Right there.
Tax dollars spent without taxpayer knowledge or consent, leading to violations of privacy (whether the fine print said it or not) to harass citizens without actual concrete data. Plus, once they've decided you own a cat because you buy a bag of cat food every now and then to feed the strays in your neighborhood, how can you prove that you do not have a cat? On whom is the burden of proof? And how can it be proven without an intrusive and probably unlawful search of your home? Moral quandaries and potentially messed up waste of time aside, the use of taxpayer dollars for such a project is wasteful, inconclusive, and should really be illegal if it isn't already.

imkopaka wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:I understand that, but the issue is with tax dollars spent purchasing said data...

Right there.
Tax dollars spent without taxpayer knowledge or consent, leading to violations of privacy (whether the fine print said it or not) to harass citizens without actual concrete data. Plus, once they've decided you own a cat because you buy a bag of cat food every now and then to feed the strays in your neighborhood, how can you prove that you do not have a cat? On whom is the burden of proof? And how can it be proven without an intrusive and probably unlawful search of your home? Moral quandaries and potentially messed up waste of time aside, the use of taxpayer dollars for such a project is wasteful, inconclusive, and should really be illegal if it isn't already.

Or maybe you're purchasing pet food for a friend or family member who does not live with you.

"Or maybe you're purchasing pet food for a friend or family member who does not live with you."

with what rents and property values are in Kings County, you may be buying cat food for your own self.....

RogueUSMC wrote:I understand that, but the issue is with tax dollars spent purchasing said data...

If that's the issue, it seems like a much bigger issue to spend tax dollars on radar guns to spy on drivers.

sheary wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:I understand that, but the issue is with tax dollars spent purchasing said data...

If that's the issue, it seems like a much bigger issue to spend tax dollars on radar guns to spy on drivers.

Radar guns have no "spy" capabilities, they simply verify whether someone is obeying or violating posted speed limits. They can't detect, any contraband, determine if you have purchased air fresheners, or anything else. Using tax dollars, to purchase data on the buying habits of citizens reeks of "big brother" .

I refuse to participate in discount card schemes, I don't belong to any buying clubs, etc. for the fact that I don't need the aggravation of advertisers, trying to sell me things. That's my choice, to avoid hassles from the private sector. But when government entities get involved, the ramifications go far beyond, dog license fee issues. For example, I buy three times my normal amount of laundry detergent, because it is on sale at a really good price. If my buying habits are then made available to the government, they could "assume" I am manufacturing Napalm, and send in the SWAT team. Is that an extreme example? Yes, but the scenario could play out several ways. Claimed a child on your taxes as a dependent? Why aren't you buying diapers, and baby food?

There is no legitimate reason, for the government to know what someone is or is not legally purchasing. JMHO

Sounds like something to tell the Attorney General about.

Jusme wrote:There is no legitimate reason, for the government to know what someone is or is not legally purchasing. JMHO

Especially guns.