Then he reports to the government that you had some lab tests. He doesn't tell them the results, just which tests you took and when.

He tells them you took an HIV test, a drug test, and a psychiatric evaluation for schizophrenia.

He doesn't tell the government what the results of the tests were, just that you took the tests.

That's meta-data.

Do you feel comfortable with that?

I'm looking forward to the responses.

Capable of destroying people's lives, useful for manipulation and blackmail.

But there are contracts that define the usage I believe.

Political Donor lists are often sold. After Howard Deans campaign ended it was acknowledged the volunteer and donor lists had a decent value.

If a process hadn't been set up to streamline the system, a lot more expense and complexity would be involved, which would also be rife with opportunities for interception of the data, misuse, etc.

The current system just makes it easier for everyone involved.

And so long as individual numbers are not examined -only those that fall into the matching patterns they are looking for and that involve a foreign endpoint- then no one is being 'spied upon', IMO.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

and a good website that speaks to some of the issues.


[link:https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy|