Comment: I think,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: really? (see in situ)

I think,

"pre-2010, no...we meant pre-2008, meant pre-2000, no...we meant pre-1996, no...we meant pre-1994, no...we meant pre-1988, no...we meant pre-1971, no...we meant pre-1963, no...we what we really really meant was pre-1947!!!"

- would've been waaaaaay too cumbersome xD

or worse, if they were truly being 'honest' (yup, a unicorn oxymoron: 'honest govt'), they'd say something like:

"ach, heck, no...we truly truly meant to say was pre-1863. Doh! no...we meant, no this time, what we really really really really meant to say was...178_.... oh heck, y'all got us: ever since before the Am. Rev. by the Crown and after, when we have any State, we're gonna rape semantics to twist 'common law' into 'legalizing'/'legitimizing'/rationalizing all and any surveillance apparatus and existent contemporary-tech against you."

I always assume, if a tech exists? it's not IF, but WHEN they're gonna use it to violate people's rights, as I've yet to see any govt ask itself: 'gee, how most efficiently, and morally do we truly protect our constituencies' rights?' .o/

sad state of affairs, eh?

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul