Venandi

Good Lord, you brought this up, it was your example, and because of that I thought you at least had a passing familiarization with the circumstances and the ability to hoist aboard why I thought it made a bad example. Clearly not though. Then... THEN... the Fox explained it in far more detail than I thought was required at the time... but alas, you still don't get it. For the record I don't like any of this stuff regardless who's doing it, nonetheless, the circumstances in your example are significantly different... go back and read his post over and over again until you understand it. As a matter of law (common practice, tradition, custom etc), it doesn't much matter what you (or I) happen to think about this because like it or not, we vote for the individual, not the party. it seems a lot of people don't get that. As far as I'm concerned Chris was free to make that move and he had his reasons. I wish him well but I still don't like it. The reason people here are upset about this is because he won by a slim margin and a lot of volunteers worked pretty damn hard to get that margin for him... he is (or was) the only conservative MP in the province. Numerically this is a small mostly rural riding and it includes a large RCAF base, IMO that played a big roll in why he prevailed as a conservative so in the fullness of time I think he'll come to regret this decision. Then again, maybe he plans to retire when the next election is called... somehow that would make the defection even worse in my view. In any case, next time around we will work just as hard for his replacement... actually, probably harder since many of us are still chaffing a bit... I still wish him the best but now I want him gone.

Yeeee Haaaawww eh? It's a shame... but what ever you do, don't give how we got here the slightest consideration. The trick was to create a mountain of well earned lack of trust, add insults, hateful rhetoric, do exactly what you promised not to do, get every aspect of following the science wrong and then de-platform anyone who warned you about the possible consequences, including (and especially) future effects like this one. It took a strong effort but here we are asking the very question you were warned was going to get asked... WTF did you think was going to happen? Now, go commiserate with your colleagues here who can't discuss any of this at a high school level either and then throw in an extra handful of nasty rhetoric, insults and sarcasm... see if that changes the trajectory for you.

Don't flatter yourself "buddy,"you shut down squat... your reflection on the importance attached to such rationalizations might be worth a moments reflection though.

Cool, looks like you failed then... and as you wisely pointed out, whether you or anyone else can rationalize your failure isn't important.

Ex military as I recall... didn't that occur reasonably close to the 2019 election and didn't she actually win her seat as a conservative then? There are a lot of military and retired members in Chris's riding and generally speaking, they don't go from elbows up to pants down as quickly as liberal voters do. It was mostly their support that gave him the slight bump he needed to prevail in the last election as a conservative. It was a narrow margin and a bunch of people worked pretty hard to get it for him. Guess what's likely to happen to that support in the next one? Ya... especially if you knew her and much of her extended family. Esther was a piano teacher and pretty well known, there's a ton of children who will always remember her kindness and patience fondly. Herb... almost forgot about you: I left an arrow (above) for your enjoyment, feel free to insert it sideways.

Not a shocker at all and IMO the FBI (and other sources) didn't ignore anything... given the open source reporting I was astounded by the lack of preparation and response. In other words (and IMO of course) the information provided in the threat assessment was at best disregarded and at worst deliberately ignored and consciously not acted on... and the question is why. Either that or the level of incompetence in capital security circles is off the charts... and I know that's not true. This goes above the capital police level IMO, I can't see folks of that calibre shrugging off threat assessments that would have set off a MASTER WARNING light for me and I don't believe for one second that the FBI or any other intelligence sources simply sat on relevant information with the hope everything would burn to the ground. So ya, there are a whole bunch of WTF questions here and I suspect that the "FBI didn't tell us" angle (in whole or in part) is about as credible as the dog ate my homework. All that to say that IMO, there's a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Not the issue at hand and no one is arguing that isn't the case.... only that it isn't the point of concern. Since I perceive that you aren't a Trump fan I'll use him to illustrate my concern with this. We will all acknowledge that he can find out virtually anything he wants to know about you. And we're all pretty sure that he could weaponize that information in some manner and use it against you in an effort to influence / modify your actions, movements, access to services etc. He can't realistically (as a practical matter of logistics) use that in a similar coercive manner across the board for the entire population or selected segments of it (like democratic voters) though... and that's a good thing IMO. SO.... If all of our collective personal data is fused into a convenient easily accessible single source APP do you trust him not to use it in a coercive, manipulative, behaviour modifying manner? Do you seriously believe that he wouldn't find a way to weaponize that, or at a minimum seek to capitalize on it in some manner? I DON"T TRUST HIM FOR A SECOND... and I don't want to sustemically enable a single point of vulnerability and simply trust him not to exploit it. People may opine that China is an extreme example and the dark side of all this could never happen here... 10 years ago I might have agreed with that but I sure don't anymore. I think this all boils down to trust and it sounds like you (and others) trust the present Trump and all future Trump's in perpetuity way more than I do. Once implemented, this won't go away. Off topic a bit but I'd put MAID in the same (potential for abuse) category. As originally conceived, you could probably convince me to go along with it. My hesitation was (and is) based on the sure and certain prospect of it being expanded in a manner I couldn't even think of at the time.... and you wouldn't have either. If I would have predicted that a veteran (with injuries sustained while serving in Afghanistan) who was seeking financial assistance to build a wheelchair ramp would be offered MAID instead you would have been the first to reply unkindly and call me a liar, Trumper, conspiracy theorist or whatever. How is it that people who despise the intrusive nature of photo radar aren't the least bit bothered by this?

Not that so much IMO, it's more like people are simply not tuned in to how this stuff can work against them. This is powerful, it's highly efficient, and there is a huge cool factor in it... as an operator in any capacity, you will quickly become enamoured with it as long as it's on your side. It boils down to a matter of trust. Would you have trusted JT with this? Would you trust Trump with it right now? My answer is HELL NO, and based on what I see right here on the forum, the breakdown falls exactly along party lines. The possible difference with me is that I don't trust either side not to abuse it. I'm going to bold and capitalize the next sentence because I think it's important... there seems to be a fundamental reversal in logic here and I say that even though I fully appreciate that some of the advantages of this comes with huge benefits for everyone. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT HAVING ACCESS TO "YOUR STUFF", IT'S ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING YOUR ACCESS TO (WHAT IS OR SHOULD RIGHTLY BE CONSIDERED) YOUR STUFF AND YOUR ABILITY TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO THINGS YOU CONSIDERED AS ABSOLUTE BEFORE THIS CAME ALONG And again, the question comes down to trust, you may trust this government now but what about the next one; or the one after that? Machinations within the banking sector in Vietnam is something of a cautionary tale when it comes to the lowest level of freedom imaginable, that being compliance or the ability to simply opt out... punishing people for non-participation is about the lowest threshold of trust I can think of. I won't spoil it for you, check it out.

Never thought of that... you may be right. It looks like this girl has discovered a workable solution though:

Indeed, that's the issue in a nutshell... digital ID is a data fusing APP. There are both benefits and pitfalls with this, here's a simple two part "dumb grunt" scenario: You go to the bank to use the ATM, it's quiet and it's raining, you park in the fire lane because it's close to the door and you're wearing good clothes. As you step out of the car you fall to the ground clutching your throat. A kind (progressively minded) lady decides not to run you over and calls 911 instead. - The camera identifies you via facial recognition, your' medical records indicate a recent anaphylactic shock event and newly acquired allergy to wasp venom. The ambulance response is prioritized and coded... epinephrin is administered by the responding EMTs immediately and you have a complete recovery. Everyone applauds. OR: - The camera identifies you via facial recognition, you're hail and hardy, dash into the bank and emerge 90 seconds later cash in hand. The system charges you with a moving violation and deducts the fine directly from your bank account. The notification you receive allows you 72 hours to make the election to plead not guilty and establish a court date. Failure to respond is deemed to be a guilty plea and the fine stands. I'm being really (REALLY) kind here BTW. Pick your poison.... You would think that greenies in Ontario would welcome automated radar speeding enforcement efforts. Imagine the fuel and emission savings if everyone (nation wide) simply drove the speed limit and it was rigidly enforced in an effort to save the planet. Nope... they're hatching out multi coloured kittens on the blacktop instead. Prove it for yourself and drive a motorcycle across Ontario. Lock in the speed limit, drive in the right hand lane and then count the tailgaters and those who pass you at warp speed. You will lose count and give up within 50 KMs. Ask me how I know that... As it stands now lots of your data is digitized but the data (from a host of sources) isn't fuzed by a single APP and accessible by clicking a meta data tag that's based on facial /gait recognition. The question boils down to do you trust the government? Based on some of the Hitler and Nazi references bandied about right here on the forum I think that opinion changes with voter preference... and no one is willing to consider the the potential see-saw ride that, in the fulness of time, is very likely to catapult them over the playground fence. In the course of my career I've had the privilege of using some cutting edge technology that the passage of time has now (very likely) rendered obsolete. Might just be me but I found it pretty impressive. By that I mean impressive to the point that I would rather be the one exploiting the data than the one being exploited by it. Then again, that's all IMO and it might just be me. I find the lack of engagement on this particular thread to be concerning as well and I think we will collectively sleep walk into this and come to regret it later.

I know a lot of people fancy themselves as tech savvy but often enough, when you get into the weeds, they aren't really aware of existing vulnerabilities much less future ones made easier under the guise of fusing existing databases for convenience, safety, and security purposes. It's wise to at least think beyond the things everyone would tend to agree with and anticipate the possible unintended consequences. Other than law enforcement and some military members who have had lawful occasion to exploit various aspects of the spectrum, I don't think most people even consider the possible (or potential) dark side of these issues and as a result, they label anyone who does a tinfoil hat wearing Trumper. Personally I don't care which government is in power... I don't trust any of them to fill potholes. I leave ya with a snippet of what I mean... suffice it to say there are courses with thick books about this stuff and seeing it reduced to partisan t-shirt slogans is a bit disheartening. Yes, these guys are flogging their own product but doing so doesn't invalidate the concerns that lead them to create it:

For those interested in the topic at hand here's an interesting video: He isn't kidding about the knives either... "In some regions of China, particularly in Xinjiang, there are regulations requiring that household knives be chained down and stamped with an identifying QR code as part of security measures. This is part of broader restrictions aimed at controlling daily life in the area."

Ditto.... given the trail of blood drops I thought you were familiar with the topic at hand. The thread isn't about the deficit or the debt, it's about digital ID in the form of an APP and the possible unintended consequences that may arise from its implementation. Since it's impossible to talk sensibly with you I won't be doing it again. All the best

You are 100% on the winning side in this debate, it will happen... and probably sooner rather than later. The sentiments you expressed above will become the standard rebuttal to any and all concerns about the road ahead and will be used to counter all references to the potential for systemic abuse. What remains to be seen is whether or not you will approve of the end result when the see-saw swings in a direction you either didn't anticipate or currently refuse to acknowledge as a possibility. In short, It leaves me with three predictions: It will happen, it will be implemented and later defended with your own (or similar) rhetoric, and you will come to see it used in ways you would never have condoned if you knew about it today. Even then my guess is that you'll defend it based on the party in power without consideration for how the next Trump will morph it into something you despise by reflecting it back in an equal and opposite manner. How could I possibly think such a thing could happen eh?

Yes indeed, and at the risk of repeating my area of concern, it's worth considering that a stand alone digital ID with biometric markers (in APP form) can easily connect all of those other things "out there in the ether" with a single click on a facial recognition meta data caption. I'm just cynical enough to believe that's the end goal here and that it will be sold as being invaluable in a medical emergency (for instance)... and that's absolutely true. But there's a dark side too. As it stands now, that same information may well be available on other data bases but it takes access authority, a bit of work and perhaps a warrant to get it. Forensic DNA gathering is a sidebar issue but no less of concern. No one likely objects to solving cold case murders by using a civilian genealogy database but what if employers choose to use similar access portals for potential employee insurance purposes. All of a sudden that coffee they offered you becomes a voluntary DNA search when you throw the plastic cup in the garbage. Are we willing to accept the idea of preemployment screening based on genetic susceptibility to future medical issues as part of the interview process? I guess my point is that if a dummy like me can think up a host of potential misuses right of the top of his head just imagine the other uses and abuses that a smart person with an agenda could come up with. This ID, when used as an APP, makes that dead easy. Once that genie is out of the bottle it will be hard to return the vicious little brute and replace the cork. In short, I don't like the apathetic notion that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear... if a company found a genetic marker they didn't like there are any number of ancillary reasons they might use to fire you. And that's just employment, the taxation and marketing possibilities are endless too. I think people will quickly come to resent the intrusion but it will only happen after it's too late.

Maybe just me but I see a few potential issues with some of the "let's just do this" thinking here. There's computer knowledge and then there's the sort of computer knowledge that comes with trusted agent status; the sort of thing that's delegated to the "anyone crowd" who happens to have the need to know... meaning things like CPIC as a for instance, there are others and we already have that spades. Outside of that category (and IMO of course), the real experts (meaning other than the anyone crowd) usually need a reason, some sort of ulterior motive that makes the effort worthwhile (and I'll include the government in that assessment too)... It's why things like online gun club membership information concern me. In one fell swoop a talented bad actor could get the name and address of every member and sell that information for profit. Knowing the name and address of everyone in the area who owns a restricted weapon would likely be worth a few bucks. And here's the rub... you could see this coming from a mile away and NO ONE BELIEVED IT. You were a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist for even suggesting the possibility. But consider... by regulation you must be a member of a gun club if you own a restricted weapon and because of that regulation, POOF, the ranks of members in a given area swell to the point that online / computer based membership management becomes a practical necessity. One data base hack could yield up to 1,200 names in a local area... it's a potential vulnerability that almost qualifies as a gift to criminal types. Now consider the same information tied (in the form of an APP) to yet another ID profile. Then there's the embarrassment factor motivation, or just the challenge of doing it, sort of a "look at the havoc I can unleash" thing... the Ashley Madison release comes instantly to mind. Throw in a hacked digital ID and even I can entertain you at length with the possibilities for abuse. Finally, and worst of all IMO because of what they stand to gain here, there's the government itself. The sales job they're likely to use probably won't even make a lot of sense given the acknowledged digital fingerprint that already exists but... they're going to say things like "we need this national digital ID (in the form of an APP BTW) to track illegal immigrants" (or such like argument). There will be more and better arguments too and they'll all be safety and security related. That's how I'd do it anyway... In response though, I'd say how about checking the nominal roll at the hotels you're housing them in? That might work. In truth, I haven't followed this issue much but if / when you see it being sold as a safety and security measure, a bit like the mandatory gun club membership, consider that it may come with a host of unintended consequences that the "if you have nothing to hide" folks never thought about. Right off the top of my head.... If it were me, and I were a climate warrior, I'd start with something like a green tax on movements outside a 50 km radius of your primary residence. Digital ID coupled with facial recognition and meta data tag makes it dead easy to do that. Then I'd put a tax on "time off in leu of overtime" at your hourly overtime rate and tax that too. I can think of a bunch more but won't bore ya'll further... the point is that's about 30 seconds worth of thought on the part of a dumb grunt with virtually no financial savvy at all. Imagine what smart, tax hungry, deficit ridden governments could come up with. I would say look at the reason(s) governments say "THEY NEED THIS FOR," look at what they already have access to and see if the argument for it rings true. People here have rightly pointed out that we (you me and us) are already in a bunch of data bases... instead of that being used as the justification for a more invasive one, maybe we should be considering the unintended consequences... maybe even the deliberate ones they forgot to mention.

And I would have bet the farm on who was going to shed a drop of tainted blood in response to the post above... and won the bet. You remind me of Youtube... used to be entertaining but no longer worth the bother.

Yup... and they'd get violent and set fires. iImagine if the only response they got to their own legitimate concerns was a mirror like reflection of the rhetoric they're spewing right now, it might go something like this.... Don't like the Pro Life Flag? -FU nobody forced ya; -This isn't a problem; -What you personally like or don't like is immaterial; and -Wy are we even talking about this? You must be bored. ----------- My advice to young women would be: Only you can save women's sports... only you can fix this but there's a cost, it's going to hurt in the short run. Walk off the field, walk out of the change room, refuse to compete and share spaces with biological men. Do it together, do it consistently and do it with the sort of dignity and quiet resolve that can never be shaken. Future generations will thank you.

OK, maybe we can sum up the sage advice to female athletes this way: - FU nobody forced ya; - This isn't a problem: and - "What you personally like or don't like is immaterial"... (is that a better quote?)

Somebody said: Duhhh, both bill passed, I even bolded it for you LOL I'm not the one who routinely posts Duhhh's, Ha Ha Ha's or LOLs... did I make that up too? I thought it might be you referencing (and flippantly) quoting a previous conservative government with an "oh ya, well take that" expression on your face. If you have an original thought that doesn't include HA Ha's, LOLs, Duhhh's and refrains of loser I might listen. So far I haven't heard much of that from you, all I've seen is little blood drops and mindless sarcasm. Even Herb can do that...

In fairness to Michael I don't think that's the case, as far as I can tell his position was one of challenging the arguments against trans gender women (in women's sports) as opposed to advocating for it... that's my take on it anyway. If we were to examine individual cases in (say) wrestling, soccer, basketball and powerlifting with specific examples, I'm thinking he would agree with the diagnosis of madness in each case individually but even so would challenge the validity of a regulatory process that excluded transgenders from competition. A difficult line to walk IMO but I've run into it (or something like it) occasionally in conversations at the gym. The discussions there are much (meaning MUCH) more cordial than anything that occurs here though and so I'll sometimes ask what they would say to a provincial or national level female athlete who doesn't want to compete against a man, or someone who was a man last month. The typical answer aligns most closely with Herbs response. It's sort of a "get over it and move on" thing and from what I've observed, women are actually finding that message more and more offensive as time goes on. Maybe they see it as dismissive. Keep in mind that my observations here qualify as wildly anecdotal BTW. In any case, It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I'm thinking that in 15 years (or so) you will be hard pressed to find anyone who will admit to defending it in any way shape or form. It will be in the same file folder as residential schools, eugenics, Japanese internment, and vax passports... not in terms of the damage done but in a cautionary context that hopefully puts The Good Idea Fairy out of business permanently. Cheers

I'll get over it...

Yes... SURPRISE, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Please provide a correction if I managed to interpret your position incorrectly.