sokamyung

You do realize the massive amount of abuse that opens up, right? So because you have ever given your "papers" to anyone in your whole life, therefore you have not expectation of privacy?

Seriously, I would love to know why you find that to be a perfectly fine thing, especially today when current abuses are built on presumptions based on a totally different world where "giving your papers" literally meant giving your unique paper to someone and it then would not simply be reproduced billions of times and spread all throughout the world for anyone and everyone's use against you.

I really hope that since you are here, it is not a challenge for you to realize the massive issues here at stake.

Think about what that means in practice … it's literally a mass surveillance state that violates every single tenet and even essentially every clause of the Constitution when, e.g., courts of uninformed and uneducated judges rule that "no, the real time constant surveillance and tracking of you through your devices is actually NOT a violation of the letter and, more importantly, the spirit of the 4th Amendment." How are you secure when you are literally under constant surveillance by a surveillance state, my friend.

I don't know why you types tend to have this kind of submissive and supplicant attitude towards the massive surveillance state, if it's not some sick self-hatred and self-punishment complex, but it is not a healthy mentality to have to make excuses for the mass surveillance and control by a minority of tyrants that lord over you as unaccountable demigods. How does that make any sense. I would love if you could try to explain that to me.

I am not sure you would consider me directly in that space, even though the vast and distributed nature of that "space" seems unlikely to produce someone that can be considered equal part high level broadly knowledgeable enough, technical enough to make a statement about the work, in addition to muck around here to provide an answer. I think your answer is lost in the crevices of the nebula of dissimilar characteristics.

That being said though, take or leave by following boiled down opinion on the matter that it is essentially just a form of greed that drives this ethos you highlight. It's both negative greed of people not wanting to discuss their secret sauce that does or could make them rich and wealthy, especially if and when it comes as the expense of others (regardless of whether it is only their sub-conscience that acknowledges it), not wanting to expose things like the spaghetti code that makes up the core of a multi-trillion dollar enterprise of maybe even the literal fraud being perpetrated to achieve riches, some self-delusion that obfuscation quals security that hopefully will prevent nefarious actors gaining insights.

The very nature of the financial industry, a store of value, worth, and a huge closet of misdeeds and fraud that is chocked full and bursting at the seams to reveal the putrid innards; makes it a massively sensitive matter and domain. The behaviors and actions or ethos of the financial industry is not at all dissimilar to when you interact with other dishonest and nefarious and secretive types who have dirty secrets to hide and ill gotten gains to obscure and squirrel away. But there is also a layer of honesty that must be maintained. The notion of "disrupting" the financial sector with the trademark wonton recklessness of the Silicon Valley mentality gives me shivers, because when, e.g., the WeWork fraud

One may as well have asked why African government officials don't publicly speak about how their government work or ask the CCP how China really works. But one could also even ask that question closer to home like how massively lossy Silicone Valley unicorns can exist or one may also ask for an audit of the DoD (which, interestingly, the recent attempt to audit the Marines led to the Auditor refusing to sign the audit) or the Federal Reserve (a set of private bankers that control the money supply without any accountability, oversight, let alone limits or balance of powers). Those are ALL equally sketchy and nefarious deceptive and manipulative smoke and mirrors slight of hand operations that one could ask the same question of why does not one speak publicly about their work.

You may be one of those that realizes that there is a thread that runs between all of the above.

It is ironic that you bring up the law, because the law … which supersedes any law produced by a wannabe feudal fiefdom like LA, is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, specifically "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". Please note the "shall not be violated", which is a critical point that is missed about the Bill of Rights in particular, that this right that is referenced in the 4th Amendment is a natural, God given right, which the 4th Amendment prohibits the government from, in this case, violating, or, in other amendments infringing on.

It is seemingly often if not always overlooked that the Bill of Rights it not actually a bill of rights at all, it is a bill of prohibitions on the government, or a bill of rights by negation of offenses against them. From what I can tell, that notion of negative rights, i.e., open ended rights bound by the prohibition of government from violating them, is singularly unique in the whole world.

I would appreciate if someone could point out an example of them same, especially as part of the most fundamental law that governs a state, which even supersede the Constitution itself, a kind of meta-Constitution; natural, God given law that supersedes all Constitutional rights and all powers of government.

library books are essentially free. They pay dividends if you read something that imparts a skill instead of being brainwashed and dumbed down by TV you pay for.