Social behavior scores

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

Remember when we thought the "conspiracists" were crazy to believe in conspiracies? or when the name conspiracists became a bad name to label someone. I have to admit it but it appears the one world government and big brother are legitimate fears all it takes is a step back and look at the progression of things.....I knew about analytics programs from years ago at least 10+ yrs ago I was suspecting that those little helper ads were not accidental but the FBI cyber analysts confirmed it then I can only imagine what the world of computer geeks have concocted as far as futuristic population control measures.

Remember when all the lofty thinkers came up with Total Information Awareness? And anyone who questioned the State (yes, I use that word again in a perjorative sense) was un-patriotic and wearing a tin-foil hat. Well, it kinda went away... and amazingly we now have what we see confronting us now. Exhibit Q:

Proposed law would let State search gun owner's social media and internet history.

(CBS NY) - A new act introduced in the New York State Assembly this month would require pistol owners to submit to a "social media review."

Anyone applying for, or renewing a pistol permit would have to give up all login information, including passwords, for any social media sites they're a part of.

Posts from the past three years on site like Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat would be reviewed for language containing slurs, racial/gender bias, threats and terrorism.

One year of search history on Google/Yahoo/Bing would also be reviewed.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Proposed law would let State search gun owner's social media and internet history.

All obvious cases aside - this seems to introduce an enormous amount of subjectivity into the “approval” process. Oh, my bad...the “disapproval” process.

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by tonyz

All obvious cases aside - this seems to introduce an enormous amount of subjectivity into the “approval” process. Oh, my bad...the “disapproval” process.

I'd love to see this go before the court as an infringement on fourth amendment rights. This seams an unreasonable search in an effort to limit second amendment rights...

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

I'd love to see this go before the court as an infringement on fourth amendment rights. This seams an unreasonable search in an effort to limit second amendment rights...

If this law were passed you wouldn’t have to wait for the courts to decide. That frog in the hot water would finally jump up and spit some Beechnut that dude’s eye and shoot ‘im down with an ol’ Colt 45.

That law would violate all things Constitutional and war would begin shortly thereafter.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

If this law were passed you wouldn’t have to wait for the courts to decide. That frog in the hot water would finally jump up and spit some Beechnut that dude’s eye and shoot ‘im down with an ol’ Colt 45.

That law would violate all things Constitutional and war would begin shortly thereafter.

Several states already have some form of this in place. We've seen it advocated before that whacko's (who always turn out to be a person "known to authorities") shouldn't have weapons. So far I haven't heard of anyone who has petitioned on a rights violation based on not having opportunity to refute the allegation that caused their firearms to be pre-emptively confiscated. The absence of the opportunity for a person to refute or undergo an eval PRIOR to the taking of property by the State is troubling. And they vary, in terms of "safeguards" from state to state so the concept is - again - equal protection is out the window. Or maybe it's just that if a person got unjustly "swatted" under such a law they're currently broke from fighting it and can't afford counsel. (Hell, in a lot of jurisdictions one has to engage in separate court action to petition for the return of their firearm lawfully used in a self-defense situation.)

Hell... that's a whole 'nuther thread.
Oh. Wait....

[Old Dog New Trick]

The current “Red Flag” laws are a different level of abuse (Un-Constitutional abuse) than what this NY Act is attempting to impose. As with violations of second, fourth and first amendments this violates the fifth, and tenth amendments as well. Probably others if actually used to deny or cause undue hardship or equal protection under the law.

You are right, we need a high echelon lawyer to sue the police, state and responsible persons on someone’s behalf that had their weapons wrongfully taken because a family member reported them for revenge or whatever that didn’t meet the criteria but was acted upon out of “an abundance of caution.” And the whole law needs to go to the SCOTUS.

On topic, can you imagine Alexia or Google ease dropping on a domestic issue where voices are raised things get hot and while the “alleged” victim doesn’t call the police...Alexia or Google home speaker does?

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

On topic, can you imagine Alexia or Google ease dropping on a domestic issue where voices are raised things get hot and while the “alleged” victim doesn’t call the police...Alexia or Google home speaker does?

Yes, we already know those silly indulgences can eavesdrop. It's a matter of 'when', not 'if'.

[tonyz]

And the beat goes on...excerpts below, complete article at link.

Google accused of manipulation to track users
November 27, 2018
Phys.org

Seven European consumer groups filed complaints against Google with national regulators Tuesday, accusing the internet giant of covertly tracking users' movements in violation of an EU regulation on data protection.

The complaints cited a study by the Norwegian Consumer Council that concluded the Internet giant used "deceptive design and misleading information, which results in users accepting to be constantly tracked."

Council official Gro Mette Moen charged that "Google uses extremely detailed and comprehensive personal data without an appropriate judicial basis, and the data is acquired by means of manipulative techniques."

"Location data can reveal a lot about a person: real time movements, frequently visited places, daily routines, interests, etc," the Norwegian complaint said.
"Constant location tracking and aggregation of location data over time can be used to build very detailed profiles of individuals and to infer religious beliefs, political leanings, and sexual orientation, among other things," it added.

Monique Goyens, director general of The European Consumer Organisation said: "Google's data hunger is notorious but the scale with which it deceives its users to track and monetise their every move is breathtaking.

"The situation is more than alarming. Smartphones are being used for spying on our every move."

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-google...ack-users.html