digmor crusher wrote, in part, "There is no privacy on the internet, either learn to accept it or don't use it."
To which I can only say, Amen!! There has never been privacy on the internet. It's always been "the public square" and what you do or say there is open to public view (even if that's via hackers, the cyber-equivalent of eavesdroppers [at their least nefarious]). My heaven, way back before I was even alive it was well known that you didn't commit to paper anything you didn't want anyone else to ever be able see under any circumstances. The same caution applies, but on steroids, about anything one does in cyberspace.
How anyone could even make a hypothetical "presumption of privacy" in cyberspace by now defies reason.
Animal wrote: "How the Senate voted. Notice a trend????????"
My feeling about internet privacy is quite a bit like David Hyde Pierce's about his private life: "My life is an open book; that doesn't mean I'm going to read it to you."
What we're seeing here, writ large, is which party is concerned with individuals and their right not to have everything about their lives not only not "read by them," but, even worse, "published by others, and selectively, based on the desires of those others," and without the consent of those individuals. There's a difference between any individual's ability to find what another individual might do on the internet and the kinds of data mining now possible. And if things weren't scary enough they're getting even more frightening with artificial intelligence that can accurately predict behavior/choices based on criteria that seemingly have nothing to do with what's being predicted. [I wish I could find the NPR piece I listened to regarding just this several weeks ago, but the details for a successful search are eluding me at the moment.]
Color me utterly unsurprised as to how the party lines on this vote were drawn. The party of "personal responsibility" and "family values" my Aunt Fanny!
Brian AKA Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134
. . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it. The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.
~ Ruth Marcus, November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story