> Any credit card transaction should be a private dealing.
I'm no expert but I believe they are since they use encryption. I don't think republicans plan to ban encryption.
I'm no expert but I believe they are since they use encryption. I don't think republicans plan to ban encryption.
Now, they're back at it again scaremongering about the Four Horsemen being reason to give them our secrets again:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal...
Even if Democrats were exactly as bad as Republicans in every regard, you could actually choose to randomly thank them for their dedication to privacy. Do that often enough, you'll soon see Democratic politicians adopting pro-privacy positions.
In reality, it seems quite obvious that despite all, there is at least a marginal difference between the parties with regards to not only privacy, but many other closely-linked issues, i.e. net neutrality.
If you get frustrated because these measures don't go far enough and buy into the "they're-all-corrupt-each-worse-than-the-other"-narrative, you're removing all incentives for them to act in your interest.
So, both parties suck at privacy but one did something for it once under pressure. Republicans are consistently in favor of trading liberty for temporary, limited security if it's not their firearms, speech, or press.
That's a pretty big "if". Trading guns, speech, and press in exchange for security seems like a much bigger deal than trading internet privacy for security.
Might even be able to add the 2nd Amendment here on the self-defense angle. It takes crypto, privacy, and endpoint protection technologies to stop hackers and online criminals effectively. The conservatives, esp military, classified high-assurance security as "munitions" since they disrupt their spy operations. They remained classified as "munitions" after the crypto wars. And, yet, we really need information security to stop all kinds of daily threats instead of them trying to ban it to hope they spot rare threats [they often fail to spot].